ALLIED DIGITAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 3, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Allied Digital Services Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 3, 13A, 13Th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. Ncpa, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaaca5509K Appellant Respondent M/S Allied Digital Services Ltd. Dcit, Cc- 3, 13A, 13Th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. Ncpa, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaaca5509K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income –Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

13A, 13th Floor, Earnest House, Mumbai. NCPA, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai-400020. PAN: AAACA5509K Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR) Respondent by : Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 03.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 29.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income –tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. The aforesaid two appeal by assessee under section

MEHUL PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, C.C 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

disallowance of exemption under section 10(13A) and Rs. 1,00,000/- for disallowance of deduction under section 80GGC. Subsequently

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Disallowance under section 14A 1,44,377) (1,54,64,845) Total Surplus /(Deficit) from Life Insurance (1,50,45,39,430) Business 38. The above statement furnished is in accordance with the Insurance Act, 1938, therefore, it cannot be stated that assessee returned income is not in accordance with the Insurance Act, 1938. There is no basis

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties. Section 13B contains special After all this comes Chapter IV which is titled as Computation of Total Income. The heads of income classified by section 14 are salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. By section

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties. Section 13B contains special After all this comes Chapter IV which is titled as Computation of Total Income. The heads of income classified by section 14 are salaries, income from house property, profits and gains of business or profession, capital gains and income from other sources. By section

ASHUTOSH GIRISH BHARKHADA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

disallowing exempt income of the Appellant claimed under Section 10(13A) of the Act, which is 2 ITA 929/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2020-21 Ashutosh

SUDHIR NAMDEV KADAM,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethsudhir Namdev Kadam, Vs. Ito Ward 42(3)(4) 501/1/A Wing Panchasheel Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Chs, Dr E Moses Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai, Mumbai, Worli S.O 400018. Pan/Gir No: Aqypk0373Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prateek Jain Respondent By Ms. Deepika Arora (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

disallowing the exemption under section 10(13A) amounting to Rs. 5,20,427/- towards House Rent Allowance, despite the assessee

PRASAD SIDDHARTH THORAT,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosaina.Ys: 2019-20

Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, and not recognition. Since the donation was made by cheque, and required documentation (receipt, Form 24A, registration proof) was provided, the disallowance was reversed. 4. That the disallowance is based on conjectures and surmises without any contrary evidence produced by the Department. 5. That the appellant, being a salaried person

HENRIETTA MARIA PEREIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR-17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1914/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2002-2003) Henrietta Maria Pereira, B/602, Vintage Chs Ltd, Ic Colony, Borivali (West),Mumbai – 400 103 Pan: Akupp5344E ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -17(1), Room No.117/135, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri H.M.Bhatt सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

disallowance made u/s. 10(10B) of the Act is in consonance with the reasons for re-opening. We are not in agreement with this argument. A perusal of reasons would show that the Assessing Officer has categorically questioned assessee’s claim of HRA. The provisions of HRA are contained in section 10(13A

MEENA VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1983/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

disallowance of House Rent Allowance exemption u/s 10(13A) of 1961 Act for the assessment year 2009-10 has relied upon the assessment order dated 28-03-2013 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act for the assessment year 2010-11, based upon which notice dated 05-04-2013 u/s 148 of 1961 Act was issued

MEENA VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1983/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

disallowance of House Rent Allowance exemption u/s 10(13A) of 1961 Act for the assessment year 2009-10 has relied upon the assessment order dated 28-03-2013 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act for the assessment year 2010-11, based upon which notice dated 05-04-2013 u/s 148 of 1961 Act was issued

MEENA VASWANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1983/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

disallowance of House Rent Allowance exemption u/s 10(13A) of 1961 Act for the assessment year 2009-10 has relied upon the assessment order dated 28-03-2013 passed by AO u/s 143(3) of 1961 Act for the assessment year 2010-11, based upon which notice dated 05-04-2013 u/s 148 of 1961 Act was issued

VIJAY RAAZ ,GODBUNDAR ROAD, DIST. THANE vs. WARD 16(1)(5), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vijay Raaz Ward 16(1)(5), Mumbai Cottage No. B-13, Cosmos Hawaiian, Near Blue Roof Club, Ghodbunder Vs. Road, Thane, West 400 601. Pan/Gir No. Adlpr8784L (Appellant) (Respondent) :

disallowance as to the deduction claimed u/s. 80GGC of the Act, thereby directing the ld.AO to pass a de novo assessment order after making necessary enquiries and providing the assessee with sufficient opportunity. 5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of ld. PCIT on the grounds mentioned above. 6. The learned Authorised Representative

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 16(2), MUMBAI vs. AZB AND PARTNERS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

13A, 13B, 13F, 14B, 14E, 43A, 43C, 43D, 43E, 43F, 43G, 43H, 43-I, 43J and 43K of the Income-tax Act, insofar as they were in force and have not been modified since the date of signature of this Agreement, or have been modified in minor respects so as not to affect their general character. (b) any other provision

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-16(2), MUMBAI vs. AZB AND PARTNERS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

13A, 13B, 13F, 14B, 14E, 43A, 43C, 43D, 43E, 43F, 43G, 43H, 43-I, 43J and 43K of the Income-tax Act, insofar as they were in force and have not been modified since the date of signature of this Agreement, or have been modified in minor respects so as not to affect their general character. (b) any other provision

DCIT 14.1.1, MUMBAI vs. AADI INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

13A of the Paper Book to submit that notice was issued for the reason that Assessing Officer failed to disallow the sales expenses which is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that the issues raised in notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act are different than the issue raised in the revision proceedings

AADI INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT -14, MUMBAI

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

13A of the Paper Book to submit that notice was issued for the reason that Assessing Officer failed to disallow the sales expenses which is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He submitted that the issues raised in notice issued u/s.263 of the Act are different than the issue raised in the revision proceedings

SHILPA PRABHAKAR KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

disallowance of Rs.35,26,484/- i.e. which was claimed by the i.e. which was claimed by the assessee as various allowances exempted under the provisions of assessee as various allowances exempted under the provisions of assessee as various allowances exempted under the provisions of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee a salaried individual ly stated, the assessee a salaried