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)

80C to Section 80U of the Act shall be allowed from his 'gross total income'. Sub-section (2) of Section 80A of the Act provides that the aggregate amount of the deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the 'gross total income' of the Assessee. We are in agreement with the Appellate Authority that Section 80AB

ITO WD 3(4), THANE vs. UMA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainincome Tax Officer-3(4) M/S. Uma Developers 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Shop No. 2, Mayur Chs Ltd. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. M.G. Road, Naupada Estate, Thane (W) 400601 Thane (W) - 400602 Pan - Aabfu8250F Appellant Respondent

disallowed under section 8 M/s. Uma Developers 143(1) of the Act merely in view of the provisions of section 80C

SHRI AJAY BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-19(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Ajay Bansal Vs Acit-Circle 19(1), Mumbai C/O B.M. Parekh & Co. 203/3, Navjivan Society, Lamington Road, Mumbai-400 008. Pan : Aacpb6224B Appellant Respondednt

section 80C. The assessee could not prove that interest expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning income from other sources. The Assessing officer disallowed

KEYUR S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

disallowed Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 80C, Rs. 8200/- under section 80D and Rs. 15,907/- under section 80D. On appeal

ORBIT EXPORTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-4(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

80C of the Act is furnished on the return of income of the Assessee on or before the due date specified under sub-section 1 of Section 139 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the various decisions which are as under: [1] ACIT, Company Circle-I(2), Coimbatore Vs. M/s. Precot Meridian Limited, Coimbatore

ANUH PHARMA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5, MUMBAI

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

80C to 80U\nof the Act.\n\n1.9 On perusing the section 80G of the Act which nowhere state\nthat, payment which are classified as CSR or donation shall not\nbe allowed even after the amendment in the section 37(1) of the\nAct, there is no change in the section 80G of the Act. Further, in\nsection

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

80C to 80U." These are additional deductions. They are quite different in kind from deductions which fall under Chapter IV. Under section 80J what is 9 ITA No.1588/M/2012 & ors. M/s. KJMC Capital Market Services Ltd. provided is an additional deduction which is calculated as a percentage of the capital employed by the assessee in certain undertakings

NIRANJAN SHRICHAND MATTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

disallowing deduction under section 80C to the extent of Rs. 17,071/-. 4. General 4.1 The learned CIT (A) deprived

CASPER ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

disallowing of Deduction claimed under section 80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191

PANKAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

disallowing of Deduction claimed under section 80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191

PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and Shri

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Rifaur Rahman (

disallowing of Deduction claimed under section 80C amounting to Rs. 100000/-.” 4 Pravin Kumar Jain / Pankaj Jain / Casper Enterprises Pvt Ltd ITAs7191

JYOTI AJIT KULKARNI,PUNE vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(3), MUMBAI

Section 80C" ], "issues": "The primary issues were the genuineness of commission payments, disallowance of business expenses, and addition for unexplained

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

SHRI AJAY NARENDRA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleshri Ajay Narendra Bansal V. Income Tax Officer -22(1)(1) 201, Plot No. 668 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan La Eoche Chsl, Tps-Iii M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 19Th Road, Ambedkar Road Khar (W), Mumbai - 400052 Pan: Aacpb6224 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kiran Mehta Department By : Ms. Kranti Yadav

disallowance is, the loan taken by the assessee against which interest was paid being a housing loan, the assessee can only claim deduction under section 24(b) and section 80C

SHRI. AJAY NARENDRA BANSAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

disallowance is, the loan taken by the assessee against which interest was paid being a housing loan, the assessee can only claim deduction under section 24(b) and section 80C

ASST CIT CIR 1, KALYAN vs. ASB INTERNATIONAL P. LTD, AMBERNATH

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7034/Mum/2013 & 7035/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07) Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Asb International बनाम/ Income Tax – Circle 1, Pvt. Ltd., V. Kalyan, E-9, Addl Ambernath Indl. 1St Floor,, Area, Mohan Plaza, Midc Anand Nagar, Wayale Nagar, Ambernath. Khadakpada, Kalyan. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan :Aaaca8424F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

disallowances and ITA 7034/Mum/2013 and 6 ITA 7035/Mum/2013 allowances, arrived at the total business income at Rs.86.07 lakhs. A set off was effected of the brought forward business loss of AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05 upon which the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that there was nil income which would qualify for deduction under Section

M/S. INDAGRO FOODS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - (OSD) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

disallowed the deduction that in case export house is not eligible for deduction and it issues a disclaimer certificate to supporting manufacturer, the supporting manufacturer is not entitled for any deduction. The ld. AR further submits that the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal that assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 80HHC on the profit earned from

SHRI HITENDRA C. GHADIA ,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

80C on account of tuition fees paid amounting to Rs. 75,539/ tuition fees paid amounting to Rs. 75,539/- 2.2 The appellant pray The appellant prays that such disallowance of deduction made s that such disallowance of deduction made be allowed.” 22.5 In view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold

SHRI. HITENDRA C GHADIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 & Assessment Year: 2013-2014 & Assessment Year: 2014-2015

80C on account of tuition fees paid amounting to Rs. 75,539/ tuition fees paid amounting to Rs. 75,539/- 2.2 The appellant pray The appellant prays that such disallowance of deduction made s that such disallowance of deduction made be allowed.” 22.5 In view of above, we uphold the addition made by the view of above, we uphold