DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is computed in accordance with

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Incom Under the existing provisions of Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is Act, the profits and gains of any insurance business is computed in accordance with

JM FINANCIAL INDIA FUND-SCHEME B,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjm Financial India Fund-Scheme Ito - 17(2)(1) Room No. 123-B, 1St Floor, B, 141, Maker Chambers Iii, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabtj0401F Appellant Respondent

4. The learned Sr. Counsel for assessee submits that in order to claim exemption under section 10(23FB), the assessee (VCF) needs to comply three conditions i.e. (i) the Venture Capital Fund is operating under the trust deed registered under the provisions of Registration Act, (ii) a certificate of registration should be granted to the funds by the Security

MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-25, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmilestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaati5880L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel A/W Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

disallowed, since, all the conditions of section 10(23FB) as well as section 115U of the Act are fulfilled. 20 Milestone Real Estate Fund 12. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the learned Principal Commissioner in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 13. We have patiently and carefully considered rival submissions and perused

ACIT, CENT. CIR.2, THANE vs. SAI HOME MAKERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

4. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee relying upon a number of documentary evidences submitted, all the conditions of section 80IB(10) having been fulfilled, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10). On the basis of submissions made and documentary evidences submitted by the assessee, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) (for ascertaining the fact whether the built

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

4,24,13,526/-\nThe learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the expenditure\non Scientific Research and Development u/s 35(2AB) totaling to Rs.\n4,24,13,526/- for all the three units, on the basis of the auditor's\ncertificate which stated that these expenses are beyond the\nguidelines laid down by DSIR. These guidelines are in contradiction\nwith

ACIT 23-1, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

ii) the assessee, which is a VCF, is not covered by the definition of a 'person' as defined under section 2(31) of the Act, since it is a trust which enjoys a special 'status' for the specific purpose of only exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. 14. In view of the above, the AO has denied the assessee

ACIT-231, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

ii) the assessee, which is a VCF, is not covered by the definition of a 'person' as defined under section 2(31) of the Act, since it is a trust which enjoys a special 'status' for the specific purpose of only exemption u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. 14. In view of the above, the AO has denied the assessee

ACIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

4) Activities not permitted under industrial policy of Government\nof India\n(5) Any other activity which may be specified by the Board in\nconsultation with Government of India from time to time.\"\n20.\nSubsequently, with effect from 21/05/2012, the SEBI (Venture\nCapital Fund) Regulations, 1996 was replaced by the SEBI\n(Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012, and\ncorresponding changes

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that if Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that if Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that if ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee are adjudicated . 4

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that if Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that if Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that if ground Nos. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee are adjudicated . 4

ASIA INVESTMENTS PVT.. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE 2 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

disallowed in full under sub disallowed in full under sub-rule (i); and Asia Investments Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 4529, 6353/MUM/2017, 6209/MUM/2019 (ii) indirect interest expenditure indirect interest expenditure, being interest that cannot be , being interest that cannot be specifically identified or segregated as relating either to taxable specifically identified or segregated as relating either to taxable specifically identified

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

disallowed holding that the assessee has not fulfill the necessary condition prescribed under section 10 B. As a consequence, assessment year 2000 – 2001, 2001 – 2002 and 2002 – 2003 were reopened. Further assessment year 2004 – 2005 was also taken under scrutiny. The first appeal for the assessment year 2003 – 04 is decided by the CIT – A ITA Nos.2943, 4987, 4988 & 6523/MUM/2008