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

GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

161 taxmann.com 158 (Delhi High Court) the disallowance made under section 14A could not be considered while computing MAT under section 115JB, the ground raised by the appellant is also allowed. The Ground of Appeal No. 1

ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. GEECEE VENTURES LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

161 taxmann.com 158 (Delhi High Court) the disallowance made under section 14A could not be considered while computing MAT under section 115JB, the ground raised by the appellant is also allowed. The Ground of Appeal No. 1

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

section 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business 37(1) redundant. The statutory distinction between business deductions and Chapter VI deductions and Chapter VI-A incentives must be respected, and A incentives must be respected, and their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. their misuse avoided in letter and spirit. Accordingly

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

disallowed for CSR cannot be considered u/s 80G of the Act. Hence, we remit the issue to the file of AO to verify whether these payments were qualified as donations u/s 80G of the Act or not, if they qualify as donation u/s 80G of the Act then the requisite amount deserves to be allowed." 8. Before

THE WOODLAND CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 23(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

161/- u/s 234A, Rs.12,771/- u/s\n234B and Rs.4,296/- u/s 234C,\nThe appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of\nthe above Grounds of Appeal.\n2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a\nco-operative housing society, which filed its return of income for the\nrelevant assessment year

ACIT 32 1, MUMBAI vs. VIDHI ENTERPRISES, 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 statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowances only to those cases where the variation exceeds 105%. Needless, the assessee shall be those cases where the variation exceeds 105%. Needless, the assessee shall be those cases where the variation exceeds 105%. Needless, the assessee shall be granted adequate proportionate being heard.” granted adequat 7.2 Similarly, the relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Similarly

VIDHI ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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 statistical purposes whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowances only to those cases where the variation exceeds 105%. Needless, the assessee shall be those cases where the variation exceeds 105%. Needless, the assessee shall be those cases where the variation exceeds 105%. Needless, the assessee shall be granted adequate proportionate being heard.” granted adequat 7.2 Similarly, the relevant finding of the Tribunal in the case of Similarly

DCIT 2(2), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

1 pertained to whether investments made by the assessee in the form of government securities acquired for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act i.e., to maintain SLR, could be treated as trading asset/stock-in-trade of the business of the assessee? The 4th question considered by the Kerala High Court

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

161 taxmann.com 511 (Mumbai\nTrib.), following the decision of Karnataka High Court held that ESOP\ncompensation expenditure incurred by assessee is an allowable\ndeduction under Section 37(1)of the Act. The ITAT Hyderabad in the\ncase of Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd 159 taxmann.com 538\n(Hyderabad - Trib.) again decided this issue in favour of the assessee\nby holding that

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 ()

161(1) of the Act. Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income

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 ()

161(1) of the Act. Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been Ground No. 8: Taxation of income which had already been considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income of the beneficiaries considered in the returns of income

BENNETT PROPERTY HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL -JOINT -DEPUTY-ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- ITO, DELHI

1'), Anagha Estates Limited ('Anagha'/'Transferor Company 2'), Aryabhata Properties Limited ('Aryabhata'/'Transferor Company 3'), Sushena Properties Limited ('Sushena'/'Transferor Company 4'), Shubhan Properties Limited ('Shubhan'/'Transferer Company 5'), Vaidehi Estates Limited ('Vaidehi'/'Transferor Company 6'), Nandeeshwar Properties Limited ('Nandeeshwar'/'Transferor Company 7'), Suryashankar Properties Limited ('Suryashankar'/'Transferor Company 8') herein after collectively referred to as (the 'Transferor Companies') with

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible. (Page 38 to 52 of Paper Book – II; Relevant para 12-17 on page 43-45) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Saravana Selvarathnam Retails