SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose being computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish a return

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

24 ITR 481 (SC), wherein it is held that profit cannot "arise out of the valuation of the closing stock". The relevant extract of the judgement of the Supreme Court is reproduced below: “While we agree with the conclusion that no part of the profits of the firm in the accounting year can be said to have accrued or arisen

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 19. It is noted that the above provision was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect 01.04.2007 with

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 19. It is noted that the above provision was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect 01.04.2007 with

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 19. It is noted that the above provision was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect 01.04.2007 with

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 19. It is noted that the above provision was inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect 01.04.2007 with

ASST CIT (LTU) 1, MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iia) in the succeeding assessment year where the assets were put to use for less than 180 days in relevant previous year 10 Deletion of addition made on account of ESOP expenses of Rs. 195,75,955/- 11 Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,80,01,727/- being expenditure on account of catalyst deployed in plant 12 Erred in allowing

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR TO ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

iia) in the succeeding assessment year where the assets were put to use for less than 180 days in relevant previous year 10 Deletion of addition made on account of ESOP expenses of Rs. 195,75,955/- 11 Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,80,01,727/- being expenditure on account of catalyst deployed in plant 12 Erred in allowing

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

24) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and when a receipt is not on in the character of income it cannot form part of the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. In the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) the income in question was taxable but was exempt under a specific provision of the Act as such

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

24) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and when a receipt is not on in the character of income it cannot form part of the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. In the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) the income in question was taxable but was exempt under a specific provision of the Act as such

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

24) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and when a receipt is not on in the character of income it cannot form part of the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. In the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) the income in question was taxable but was exempt under a specific provision of the Act as such

OMNI ACTIVE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ADDL/JT/DY/ASST/CIT/ITO/NFAC, DELHI

2 to 2.5 raised by the Appellant are directed against 12. the disallowance of the weighted deduction of INR 98,93,734/- claimed by the Appellant under Section 35(2AB) of the Act. In the return of income the Appellant had claimed weighted 13. deduction at the rate of 200% under Section 35(2AB) of the Act in respect

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

24 to 29 are not relevant for the present purposes) 30. The next issue raised by the learned Commissioner is with respect to the alleged failure of the Assessing Officer in not examining whether investments held by the assessee are in conformity with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, and in not examining whether the assessee

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

24 to 29 are not relevant for the present purposes) 30. The next issue raised by the learned Commissioner is with respect to the alleged failure of the Assessing Officer in not examining whether investments held by the assessee are in conformity with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, and in not examining whether the assessee

STRIDES ARCOLAB LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

24 ITA 1903/Mum/2015 M/s Strides Arcolab Limited Rs.9204/- which amounted to Rs.46,94,036/- as sale consideration. The TPO recomputed share value at Zar 5061.82 based on the financials of Stripes SA Pharmaceuticals P Ltd, South Africa for December,2010 and accordingly arrived at an adjustment of Rs ̣.1,44,66,847/- which is as under:- Particulars Amount

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

24,751/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS therefore notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) was issued on 13.09.2011 which was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee on 24.02.2012 and 30.05.2012. The assessee is the Trust which

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

24, Homi Mody Street Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 001. PAN:AAATJ 0095 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee by : Shri Dilip J. Thakkar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Alok Johri-DR सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date of Hearing : 19.01.2016 सुनवाई सुनवाई