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 ()

15) of the Act on the interest income on tax free bonds on tax free bonds earned by the assessee earned by the assessee; and (iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction

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 ()

15) of the Act on the interest income on tax free bonds on tax free bonds earned by the assessee earned by the assessee; and (iii) u/s 10(38) of the Act on u/s 10(38) of the Act on the income from sale of long term the income from sale of long term securities where Securities Transaction

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

15 M/s. Sai Home Makers condition of section 80IB(10) is not fulfilled in respect of two of the flat, still assessee would be eligible for deduction under section 80IB(10) on pro–rata basis in respect of other flats which fulfills the conditions of section 80IB(10). For arriving at a just and proper conclusion on the aforesaid issue

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

15. Further the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DHFL Capital Fund Vs ITO (supra) held that, so far as SEBI does not find any default of any contravention of the provisions of the SEBI Act or SEVI (VCF) Regulation 1996, then it can be inferred that the assessee-trust fulfils the ITA No. 277 Mum 2019-JM Financial India

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

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

section 23(5) to the Act. Though the\namendment was brought in the year 2018, but the law maker intention\nbehind the amendment is, to not charge the notional rent from the\nbuilder or a person who is into the business of construction of property\nupto two years. It also can be stated otherwise as, after two years\nnotional rent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

House, Road), Charni Road (East), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AAFCA 3001 P Appellant Respondent : Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR : 01/10/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/12/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner

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 for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment year 2014 – 15

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 for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment year 2014 – 15

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 for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment year 2014 – 15

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 for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment year 2014 – 15

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 for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment year 2014 – 15

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 for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment year 2014 – 15

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 for all these seven years, disallowance of exemption under section 10 (38) of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [ The Act] for assessment year 2014 – 15

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

House, CBDT issued a Circular No. 11 of 2008 dated 19th December 2008 explaining the amendment as under:- 3. The newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) will apply only to entities whose purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility i.e., the fourth limb of the definition of charitable purpose contained in section 2(15). Hence

ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. ASHISH CONSTRUCTION CO., THANE

In the result, the common question of law framed in these two appeals are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2006 - 2007 Asst. Cit Circle-2, Ashish Construction Co., Thane S-1, Narmada Apartments, बनाम/ Cabin Road, Bhayander Vs. Road (E), Thane 401 105 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aajfa4249G राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri V Vidhyadhar "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjay Sharma

Properties (supra). The relevant portion from the order is reproduced hereunder: “These two appeals are admitted on the following common substantial question of law and taken up for hearing by consent of both the parties. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the asses

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

15. Further the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DHFL Capital Fund Further the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DHFL Capital Fund Further the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DHFL Capital Fund Vs ITO (supra) held that, so far as SEBI Vs ITO (supra) held that, so far as SEBI does not find any default of any does

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

15. Further the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DHFL Capital Fund Further the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DHFL Capital Fund Further the coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal in DHFL Capital Fund Vs ITO (supra) held that, so far as SEBI Vs ITO (supra) held that, so far as SEBI does not find any default of any does

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

10. The Tribunal also noted that the objects were admittedly charitable in nature. The surplus generated was wholly secondary. It was, therefore, that the Tribunal held that the proviso to section 2 (15) of the Act would not apply. 6. The Appellant submits that the issue of applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the cases of the authorities