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

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 ()

34) and 10(38) of the Act respectively respectively, is legally allowable in the hands of the , is legally allowable in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 of the Act. Put differently, the question

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 ()

34) and 10(38) of the Act respectively respectively, is legally allowable in the hands of the , is legally allowable in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 of the Act. Put differently, the question

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 ()

34) and 10(38) of the Act respectively respectively, is legally allowable in the hands of the , is legally allowable in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 of the Act. Put differently, the question

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 ()

34) and 10(38) of the Act respectively respectively, is legally allowable in the hands of the , is legally allowable in the hands of the assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 assessee notwithstanding the non obstante mandate of section 44 of the Act. Put differently, the question

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

34) and 10(35) in effect allowing and granting two status for same year. It was further submitted by ld. DR for the revenue that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6.8 of his order clearly held that clause 8(b) of SEBI (VCF) Regulations is mandatory and prohibits by putting an embargo for carrying out any other activities other than

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

34) and 10(35) is valid in\nabsence of any restriction u/s. 10(23FB) for claiming\nexemption under any other section of the Act.\n2.2 Attention is also invited to the \"Interpretative letter under\nthe SEBI (Informal Guidance) Scheme, 2003 in connection with\nSEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996\" placed at page\nno. 273 of FPB dated December

DCIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property", "Capital Gains" or "Income from\nother sources", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38), 10(34

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DCIT vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38), 10(34

DY. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38), 10(34

DCIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38), 10(34

DCIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38), 10(34

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

house property\", \"Capital Gains\" or \"Income from\nother sources\", or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B?\"\n6. \"Whether the nature or character of income accrued to and claimed exempt\nby assessee u/s 10(38), 10(34

DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED , MUMBAI

34 and 38 of Section 10 and\nassessee challenged the issue by way of writ\npetition. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court not only\ndisapproved the reopening of the assessment but\ngave the findings on merit also which are as under: -\n\"11. Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nstipulates as follows:\n\"44. Notwithstanding anything

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

House, 24, Homi\nMody Street, Fort,\nMumbai-400001\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nPAN NO. AAATT 9835A\n\n\nAppellant by\n:\nShri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri\nSukhsagar Syal & Shri Atul Suraiya\nRespondent by\n:\nShri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\n\n\nDate of Hearing\n:\n29.09.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n:\n10.10.2025\n\n\n\nORDER\nPer

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

TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

34 and 38 of Section 10 and\nassessee challenged the issue by way of writ\npetition. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court not only\ndisapproved the reopening of the assessment but\ngave the findings on merit also which are as under:-\n\n\"11. Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nstipulates as follows:\n\n\"44. Notwithstanding anything

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

House, 24, Homi\nMody Street, Fort,\nMumbai-400001\n(Respondent)\n\nAppellant by :\nShri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar & Shri Atul Suraiya\nRespondent by :\nShri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR\n(Respondent)\n\nDate of Hearing\nDate of Pronouncement\n:\n:\n29.09.2025\n10.10.2025\n\n2\nITA Nos.4282,4283,4156,4496,4727,\n4835,4852,4419,4873/MUM/24\nTata Education Trust\nORDER\nPer Saktijit