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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 11(1)(a) should be computed on gross or net receipts.3. Whether the deficiencies in Form No.10 would disallow

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

JOYO PLASTICS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-24 (1)

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Joyo Plastics, Acit Circle-24(1), 104, Jai Antariksh Co-Op Society, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Makwana Road, Marol Naka, Chamber, Lalbaug, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aaafj 0286 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ajay R Sing/Akshay Pawar : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2024 : 13/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement

11 under section 143(1)(a) section 143(1)(a) indicates that the Assessing Officer has to indicates that the Assessing Officer has to proceed accepting the return and making the permissible adjustments proceed accepting the return and making the permissible adjustments proceed accepting the return and making the permissible adjustments only. As a result of insertion of the Explanation

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TRANS THANE CREEK WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dy. Cit (Exemption)-2(1), Trans Thane Creek Waste Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Management Association, Vs. Building, Cumballa Hill, P-128, Next To L & T Infotech Mumbai-400026. Ltd., Shill Mahape Road, Navi Mumbai-400701. Pan No. Aadct 4375 R Appellant Respondent

disallowance of accumulation u/s 11(1)(a). After carefully considering accumulation u/s 11(1)(a). After carefully considering accumulation u/s 11(1)(a). After carefully considering the e-submission filed submission filed by appellant and upon perusal by appellant and upon perusal of the order of the assessing officer. The appellant is of the order of the assessing officer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

11,585 Direct Expenditure on TCO 63,677 Proportionate administrative expenditure (disallowed) 17,00,019 Expenses disallowed under section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

11,585 Direct Expenditure on TCO 63,677 Proportionate administrative expenditure (disallowed) 17,00,019 Expenses disallowed under section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

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

11,585 Direct Expenditure on TCO 63,677 Proportionate administrative expenditure (disallowed) 17,00,019 Expenses disallowed under section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 1

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

11,585 Direct Expenditure on TCO 63,677 Proportionate administrative expenditure (disallowed) 17,00,019 Expenses disallowed under section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 1

JINSEVA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appe

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

section 11 of the Act since the same provides for utilization of funds outside the same provides for utilization of funds outside India. The Hon. India. The Hon. CIT (Exemptions) failed to appreciate t CIT (Exemptions) failed to appreciate that no such expenses have hat no such expenses have been actually incurred outside India and if at all any such

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

disallowance under section 37(1) and what was claimed under 80G was 50% of INR 23,25,000 at hat was claimed under 80G was 50% of INR 23,25,000 at hat was claimed under 80G was 50% of INR 23,25,000 at INR 11

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 11(5) and 13(1)(d) of the IT Act i.e. in the shares of Bajaj Group of companies, dividend income derived out of such unprescribed modes of investment as per 11(5) and 13(1)(d) of the IT Act, is liable to be penalized u/s 164(2) of the IT Act to the extent such quantum