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

c) claimed in various AYs including the year under consideration (refer table extracted in the earlier part of this order), we see merit in the claim of the assessee that the 10 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India deduction claimed under section 36(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

c) claimed in various AYs including the year under consideration (refer table extracted in the earlier part of this order), we see merit in the claim of the assessee that the 10 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India deduction claimed under section 36(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

c) claimed in various AYs including the year under consideration (refer table extracted in the earlier part of this order), we see merit in the claim of the assessee that the 10 ITA 2943-2894-2893-3160-3173/M/ 2023 & 2971-2970/M/ 2023 Small Industries Development Bank of India deduction claimed under section 36(1

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

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

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

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

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DICT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

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

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

SWARAN NADHAN SALARIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result all In the result all appeals of the assesses from AY 2014

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

section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded on ought to be evaded on ₹88,36,915/- -, amounting to ₹30,03,667/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: . The CIT(A) confirmed the levy, holding that: (i) , the assessee failed to file any evidence or details

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.

c) is used in entirely different senses, in the relevant deduction clauses. The differentiation is also evident from the fact that each of these contributions is separately dealt with in different clauses of section 36(1). All these establish that Parliament, while introducing section 36(1) (va) along with section 2(24) (x), was aware of the distinction between

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

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 to be part of the corpus

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

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 to be part of the corpus

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

disallowed the benefit of dividend income for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and made addition of Rs.48,70,00 the Act and made addition of Rs.48,70,00,000/- to the returned to the returned income of the assessee. income of the assessee. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. On further appeal

MMTIS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

section 13(1)(c)(li) and 13(2)c) in relation to payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without considering evidences and s considering evidences and submissions which proves that ubmissions which proves that these payments made were

MMTI'S EDUCATION & RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

section 13(1)(c)(li) and 13(2)c) in relation to payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without considering evidences and s considering evidences and submissions which proves that ubmissions which proves that these payments made were

MMTIS EDUCTION & RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) I(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

section 13(1)(c)(li) and 13(2)c) in relation to payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without considering evidences and s considering evidences and submissions which proves that ubmissions which proves that these payments made were

SHREE HAZARIMAL SOMANI MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT EXEMPTION CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.104, 2297 & 2298/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

section 13(3) r.w.s. 13(1)(c) of the IT Act.?" (5) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is right in restricting the disallowance

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under *[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading A under the heading "C. Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if ] the return is "C. Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if ] the return is "C. Deductions in respect of certain

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Where assessee claimed to have made purchases from some parties but it was not able to produce said parties and summons served to them were returned back un-served, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was leviable [In favour of revenue] The assessee-company claimed exemption under section 10B. The Assessing

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section ' 3(3)(a), read with 13(1)(c){ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961” 6.16 It was further contended by the assessee that : “Had IRS 2001 and IRS 2002 achieved the same subscription amount as above IRS2007), the effective rate of payment to the earlier research Agencies would we peen....” comparable The assessee at one point of argument