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 ()

35,11,223/-. The AO denied claim of exemption enied claim of exemption u/s. 10(15), 10(33/34), and 10(38) of the Act on the ground that u/s. 10(15), 10(33/34), and 10(38) of the Act on the ground that u/s. 10(15), 10(33/34), and 10(38) of the Act on the ground that the 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 ()

35,11,223/-. The AO denied claim of exemption enied claim of exemption u/s. 10(15), 10(33/34), and 10(38) of the Act on the ground that u/s. 10(15), 10(33/34), and 10(38) of the Act on the ground that u/s. 10(15), 10(33/34), and 10(38) of the Act on the ground that the income

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

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 VCF. The assessee

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 ()

35) of the Act. Thereafter, the funds were Act. Thereafter, the funds were ultimately invested into the VCU invested into the VCU income earned there income earned there from has been distributed among the unit from has been distributed among the unit holders and which has been claimed as u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. holders and which has been

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 ()

35) of the Act. Thereafter, the funds were Act. Thereafter, the funds were ultimately invested into the VCU invested into the VCU income earned there income earned there from has been distributed among the unit from has been distributed among the unit holders and which has been claimed as u/s 10(23FB) of the Act. holders and which has been

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

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

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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n3,70,00,453/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.1,10,35,995/- allowable under section

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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n3,70,00,453/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.1,10,35,995/- allowable under section

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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n3,70,00,453/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.1,10,35,995/- allowable under section

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

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

property’. [CIT\nv Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd (2016) 72 Taxman.com 254].\nThus, the AO is not justified in treating the rental receipts of Rs.\n3,70,00,453/- as business receipts and deny the Appellant standard\ndeduction amounting to Rs.1,10,35,995/- allowable under section

DY. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ASIAN PAINTS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

house research & development facility. Therefore, we agree with the contentions of the Id. counsel for the assessee, before us that in the impugned year involved before us, the Revenue has erred in restricting the claim of weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act to the extent approved by the prescribed authority ie. DSIR. 21. The aforesaid decision

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated

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. ii. With respect to the deduction of Municipal taxes, there is no requirement for reducing the income of the assessee where the learned assessing officer has estimated the percentage of the cost of the equity as rate of return on the investment. In fact, the deduction of municipal taxes is inbuilt in the taxability of 5% estimated