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

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 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

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

ACIT, CENT. CIR.2, THANE vs. SAI HOME MAKERS, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, assessee‟s appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Properties, [2013] 353 ITR 36 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that housing project comprises of several independent buildings consisting of several residential units. Therefore, even if one of the building in a housing project comprising of several residential units satisfies the conditions of section 80IB(10) assessee would be eligible for deduction. Similar view has also been

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

13. Now turning to the facts of the present case the assessing officer denied the exemption under section 10(23FB) to the assessee by holding that holding that the assessee made investment in mutual funds and violated SEBI (VCF) Regulation and also violated the objects of clause of the trust deed. The assessing officer has not disputed that the trust

DCIT (E)- 2(1), MUMBAI vs. J.R.D TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

House, 24, Homi Commissioner of Income-tax Mody Street, Fort, Vs. (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sukh Sagar Sayal, ARs प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Rajat Mittal, DR ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 24.06.2019 घोषणा की

J.R.D. TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (NOW ASSSESSED BY THE DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

House, 24, Homi Commissioner of Income-tax Mody Street, Fort, Vs. (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (ApIlaaqaI- / Appellant) .. (p`%yaqaaI- / Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sukh Sagar Sayal, ARs प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent by : Shri Rajat Mittal, DR ुनवाई की तारीख / Date of hearing: 24.06.2019 घोषणा की

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

House, 11th Floor, 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 247 Park, L.B.S. Marg, Parel, Lalbaug Vikhroli (West) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400083 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATW0014E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Ms. Vaibhavi Patel Revenue by: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 05.01.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29.03.2017 आदेश

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

House, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs 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

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 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

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