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

House, 24, National Faceless Assessment Homi Mody Street, Fort, Centre-2(1), Vs. Mumbai-400001 MTNL Tele Building, PAN : AAATS1013P Cumballa Hills, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement 26.08.2024 : Per Padmavathy S, AM: 1. These

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

house property’ or ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of ‘capital gains’ or ‘income from other sources’ but in the case of assessee, who is engaged in the business of insura is engaged in the business of insurance such income nce such income

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

house of the trust and loan was given to another society for construction. The trust was running an educational institution and was covered under section 10(22). The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of sections 11 to 13 and denied the benefit to the assessee under section 10(22), The Hon'ble Court, referring to the decision of Apex Court

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

10 of the Income Tax Act. It\nwas observed in that case that merely because the owner of the property was\na company incorporated with the object of owning property, the incidence of\nincome derived from the property owned could not be regarded as altered;\nthe income came more directly and specifically under the head property than\nincome from business

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was added to the total income of ₹ 562807/–. b) For this year also, as in assessment year 2014 – 15, assessee has shown long-term capital gain in the same company as exempt income under section 10 (38) ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was added to the total income of ₹ 562807/–. b) For this year also, as in assessment year 2014 – 15, assessee has shown long-term capital gain in the same company as exempt income under section 10 (38) ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was added to the total income of ₹ 562807/–. b) For this year also, as in assessment year 2014 – 15, assessee has shown long-term capital gain in the same company as exempt income under section 10 (38) ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13

MOHAN THANKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was added to the total income of ₹ 562807/–. b) For this year also, as in assessment year 2014 – 15, assessee has shown long-term capital gain in the same company as exempt income under section 10 (38) ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was added to the total income of ₹ 562807/–. b) For this year also, as in assessment year 2014 – 15, assessee has shown long-term capital gain in the same company as exempt income under section 10 (38) ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was added to the total income of ₹ 562807/–. b) For this year also, as in assessment year 2014 – 15, assessee has shown long-term capital gain in the same company as exempt income under section 10 (38) ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

house property was added to the total income of ₹ 562807/–. b) For this year also, as in assessment year 2014 – 15, assessee has shown long-term capital gain in the same company as exempt income under section 10 (38) ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

House, 24, Homi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A Appellant by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal & Shri Atul Suraiya Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: Captioned are bunch of nine

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

House, 24, Homi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A Appellant by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal & Shri Atul Suraiya Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: Captioned are bunch of nine

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

House, 24, Homi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A Appellant by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal & Shri Atul Suraiya Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10.10.2025 Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President: Captioned are bunch of nine

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1, KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

10 of the Income Tax Act. It\nwas observed in that case that merely because the owner of the property was\na company incorporated with the object of owning property, the incidence of\nincome derived from the property owned could not be regarded as altered;\nthe income came more directly and specifically under the head property than\nincome from business

ARIHANT DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -1 , KALYAN

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\ndismissed

10 of the Income Tax Act. It\nwas observed in that case that merely because the owner of the property was\na company incorporated with the object of owning property, the incidence of\nincome derived from the property owned could not be regarded as altered;\nthe income came more directly and specifically under the head property than\nincome from business