DCIT- CIRCLE - 3 , MUMBAI vs. OMKAR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, THANE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.248/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit Circle-3, Thane बिधम/ M/S. Omkar Builders & Room No.02, 6Th Floor, Developers Vs. Aashar It Park, B-Wing, A-1/54, Shah & Nahar Wagle Industrial Estate, Industrial Estate Sitaram Road No.16Z, Thane (W- Jadhav Marg, Lower Parel 400604. (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfo3908J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 08.10.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

1O)(c), the assessee would be eligible for grant of relief under section 80-IB(10) on a proportionate basis. Thus it is held that the assessee is entitled to succeed both on the principle of proportionality as well as by reason of the construction on the meaning of the expression 'housing project' as referring to construction of any building

GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 10(2), MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

1O,48,OOO/- added by the A.O. The disallowance is restricted to Rs.8,26,99,OOO/-. The appellant had already disallowed Rs.36,98,OOO/-, hence, net amount allowable for disallowance is Rs.7,90,01,000/- rest of the amount is deleted i.e.Rs.25,20,47,000. Relief granted to the appellant is Rs.25,20,47,000/- 7 and 164/Mum/2015

ASST CIT 14(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. GODREJ INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the results, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Godrej Industries Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kalyaniwlla & Mistry, Income-Tax-10(2), फनधभ/ Room No.475, 4Th Floor, Army & Navi Building, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M K Marg, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 Asst. Commissioner Of Income- Godrej Industries Ltd., Tax-14(1)(2), Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern फनधभ/ Room No.460, 4Th Floor, Express Highway, Aayakar Bhavan, Vikhroli, Vs. M K Marg, Mumbai-400079 Mumbai-400020 स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacg2953R (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

1O,48,OOO/- added by the A.O. The disallowance is restricted to Rs.8,26,99,OOO/-. The appellant had already disallowed Rs.36,98,OOO/-, hence, net amount allowable for disallowance is Rs.7,90,01,000/- rest of the amount is deleted i.e.Rs.25,20,47,000. Relief granted to the appellant is Rs.25,20,47,000/- 7 and 164/Mum/2015

MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-25, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmilestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaati5880L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel A/W Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

disallowed, since, all the conditions of section 10(23FB) as well as section 115U of the Act are fulfilled. 20 Milestone Real Estate Fund 12. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the learned Principal Commissioner in the order passed under section 263 of the Act. 13. We have patiently and carefully considered rival submissions and perused

ACIT 3 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S LML LTD, MUMBAI

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

1O in ITA No. 4396/Mum/2013 and has filed appeal u/s. 260A to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide Income Tax Appeal No. 1689/2017. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of interest of Rs.1,38,99,000/- attributable to the interest free advance to M/s. Vespa

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 80IB (10) of the Act and he disallowed the deduction. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the disallowance of deduction by observed as under: - Page 23 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) “7.1. The A.O. has thus disallowed rebate u/s.80

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 80IB (10) of the Act and he disallowed the deduction. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the disallowance of deduction by observed as under: - Page 23 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) “7.1. The A.O. has thus disallowed rebate u/s.80

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 80IB (10) of the Act and he disallowed the deduction. Aggrieved assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who also confirmed the disallowance of deduction by observed as under: - Page 23 of 33 ITA No.2954 & 2955, 6131 & 3454/Mum/2012 Rajesh Builder s (AYs:04-05,05-06,07-08,08-09) “7.1. The A.O. has thus disallowed rebate u/s.80

AEGIS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

1O Notional Finance expenses as per 1.02,32,945 Ind-AS — Disallowed in the computation of income 1 1 Ecap Equities Ltd 5,OO,OO,424 Interest not disallowed u/s 36(t)(iii) (B) 8,19,17, 889 Total interest debited to P&L Account 16,32,89,701 (A+B) 11 M/s. Aegis Limited 19. As regards availability

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

1o be assessed under this Act, or an intimation under sub- section (1) or sub- section (IB) of section 143, where the assessee objects to the making of adjustments! or any order of assessment under sub- section (3) of section 143 or section 144, where the assessee objects to the amount of income assessed, or to the amount

ITO 24(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. NEETA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-24 (3)(2), M/S Neeta Enterprises, Ro. No.704, C-11, 7Th Floor, 141, Gundecha House, बनाम/ B.K.C. Bandra(East), Jawahar Nagar, Vs. Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aacgn4947M

section 80 IB(10) of the IT Act, 1961.” 2.5 After considering the aforementioned submissions of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) has come to the conclusion that prima facie the project was not approved by Local Authority i.e. CIDCO as housing project but as residential building in shop line as there was no provision for commercial area in housing project

JM FINANCIAL INDIA FUND-SCHEME B,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result this ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhjm Financial India Fund-Scheme Ito - 17(2)(1) Room No. 123-B, 1St Floor, B, 141, Maker Chambers Iii, Nariman Point, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabtj0401F Appellant Respondent

1O(23FB) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). Ground No.2: Assessment of alleged income as 2 NA 'Income from NA other sources' instead of assessment under provisions of section 161(1) of the Act On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the CIT(A) having upholding the denial of exemption under section 10(23FB

FERARI INVESTMENTS & TRADING CO.P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

Section 14A will not apply if no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year.” 5. Respectfully following the Delhi High Court, we restrict the disallowance to the extent of exempt income of ₹ 10.75 only. This issue of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 6. The next issue in this appeal of the assessee is against

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(3), MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2013-

disallowed in view of the provisions of section 199 of the Act, read with Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules. The assessee contended that while making payment of income on investments, the payers deducted TDS as per provisions of the Act and reflected the same in the name of the assessee. The credit for TDS is also reflected

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. UNITED HELICHARTERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. United Helicharters Tax-10(2), Pvt Ltd Room No.432, 4Th Floor, 238, Hindustan Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Khohinoor Complex, Mumbai 400 020 Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai 400 064. Pan: Aaacu 3352N Appellant .. Respondent

disallowance of the claim of expenditure claimed by the assessee. At the time of such payment the provisions relied upon by the CIT(A) was not in existence. Thus, the assessee was not expected to do something which were impossible to perform. The Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in 6 DCIT Vs. M/s. United Helicharters P.Ltd. case of Sterling Abraive

HIRANANDANI AKRUTI JV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Hiranandani Akruti Jv, Dcit, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Central Circle-5(1), बनाम/ Road No.7, Marol, M.I.D.C. Mumbai Vs. Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaaa1443H

disallowances made by the Ld. Assessing Officer is cannot be said to be inflated and are legal/professional expenses incurred to safeguard the interest of the business of the assessee, being legal and professional fees. Even otherwise, section 37(1) of the Act speaks 5 Hiranandani Akruti JV about ‘any expenditure’ (not being expenditure in the section

VAAYA RENEWABLE ENERGY (PURNA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1)`, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Years: 2012-13 Vaaya Renewable Energy Dcit, (Purna) Private Limited, Central Circle-3(1), बनाम/ A-9, Enercon Tower, Veera 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Vs. Desai Raod, Veera Nariman Point, Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400021 Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aadcv7290F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hemakataria राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Ms. N. Hemlatha-Dr

disallowance is that the purpose of the trip was explained and further Shrikumar and Rajesh Khanna, employees of Wind World Group of companies were assigned the responsibility of promotion of new technology. It is also not in dispute that both these persons are ITA Nos.535/Mum/2018 5 Vaaya Renewable Energy (PURNA) Pvt. Ltd. employees of the assessee company and visited abroad

NAVINCHANDRA N . MAJITHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Shri Navinchandra N. Income Tax Officer-9(2)(1) Majithia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 304, Kedia Chambers, M.K. Road, Vs. Near New Era Cinema, Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaepm6435F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Keyuri Desai Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar,Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/11/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18/11/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

disallowance of legal expenses of Rs.12,79,871/-, incurred by the assessee. The stand of the assessee is that the ld. Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) did not appreciate the facts in a proper prospective as the legal expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business/earning interest income. Our attention