ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No. 3 with its Sub-Grounds is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalabbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. 3, Corporate Park, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400 071 Pan: Aaack3935D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent & Acit 2(1) (1) R. No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Marg, Mumbai- 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs.

disallow the same while processing the return under section 143(1) (a)(iv) of the Act. 11. In following judicial

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

11 and, accordingly, he disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

11 and, accordingly, he disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

1)(d) (ii) of the IT. Act, 196l for the reason that as per section 11(5)investment in shares is not a specified mode. Consequently, per section 11(5)investment in shares is not a specified mode. Consequently, per section 11(5)investment in shares is not a specified mode. Consequently, the dividend received there from such shares could

M/S G.L.CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/NATIONAL FACE LESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S G.L. Construction Pvt. Ltd, Acit/National Faceless 304, Gokul Arcade B, Subhash Appeal Centre, Road, Near Garware, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 3438 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. N.R. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

section 143(1)(a)(iv) (para no. 3.3., page No. 11 of the CIT(A) order). 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties We have heard rival submission of the parties We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue of the admission of the additional ground. The Additional ground the admission of the additional ground

LIONS CLUB OF MALAD BORIVALI CHARITY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lions Club Of Malad Borivali Cit Exemptions, Charity Trust, 601,6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills, Pd Lions College, Sv Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026. Sunder Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaatl 1407 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Shankarlal Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

11 of the Act. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed by the was completed by the Assessing Officer on 30.11.2019, Assessing Officer on 30.11.2019, wherein, he accepted the return of income filed by the assessee. accepted the return of income filed by the assessee. 5.1 Subsequently, the Ld. CIT(E) called for the record and after

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

disallowed the exemption on two violations viz. violation of section 13(1)(d)(iii) and section 13(2)(h). So far as the conditions required to be fulfilled u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) are concerned any income from the shares in a company other than public sector company or shares prescribed or form of investment under clause

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

disallowed the claim of an exemption of Rs 51,21,991 u/s 11(2) as the trust has not filed Form No. 10 51,21,991 u/s 11(2) as the trust has not filed Form No. 10 51,21,991 u/s 11(2) as the trust has not filed Form No. 10 within the due date specified

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1) of Section 36. However, the question remains whether the purpose of inserting sub-section (9) of section 40A of the Act was to discourage genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare activities of the employees. This issue has been examined by this Court on multiple occasions. Before taking note of such decisions, we may notice that the explanatory

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

1) of Section 36. However, the question remains whether the purpose of inserting sub-section (9) of section 40A of the Act was to discourage genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare activities of the employees. This issue has been examined by this Court on multiple occasions. Before taking note of such decisions, we may notice that the explanatory

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.] The appellant has contended that it had claimed deduction u/s 11(2) of Rs.6,50,00,000/- and prepared form No.10 in physical and hence, only a procedural lapse should not prejudice assessee from this deduction. However, no reason for failure to file the declaration through electronically along with

BRILLPHARMA PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CPC,BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictional High Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, Rule 11(i) of the Central Processing of Returns Scheme 2011 states that “Where

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

disallowed the exemption on two violations viz. violation of section 13(1)(d)(iii) and section 13(2)(h). So far as the conditions required to be fulfilled u/s 13(1)(d)(iii) are concerned any income from the shares in a company other than public sector company or shares prescribed or form of investment under clause

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

disallow the exemption u/s 11 (1)(c ) of the Act vide the following observations : 1. The order of the CBDT dated 10.11.2015 is not retrospective in operation and does not mention that the order would apply to the year under consideration. 2. The said order of the CBDT has been passed in response to the assessee’s application dated

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

disallow the exemption u/s 11 (1)(c ) of the Act vide the following observations : 1. The order of the CBDT dated 10.11.2015 is not retrospective in operation and does not mention that the order would apply to the year under consideration. 2. The said order of the CBDT has been passed in response to the assessee’s application dated

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

disallow the exemption u/s 11 (1)(c ) of the Act vide the following observations : 1. The order of the CBDT dated 10.11.2015 is not retrospective in operation and does not mention that the order would apply to the year under consideration. 2. The said order of the CBDT has been passed in response to the assessee’s application dated

KETAN BROTHERS DIAMONDS EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2) /ACIT 23(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 143(1) of the Act. As the assessee had suo-moto disallowed 20% of the motor car expenses, learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to give credit of same, after verification. Being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. 9. During the course of hearing, learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that disallowance, if any, of the motor

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

11 and, accordingly, he disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held