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

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

houses in India for residential purposes and which is eligible for deduction purposes and which is eligible for deduction under clause (viii) of under clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of section 36;" section (1) of section 36;" It is pertinent that receipt of shares as corpus donation is in It is pertinent that receipt of shares as corpus donation

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

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Housing & Urban Development Corporation 2,23,51,249 11(5)(ixa) Ltd HDFC Bank Ltd 3,34,48,993 11(5)(iii) ICICI Bank Ltd 71,25,000 11(5)(iii) Barclays Bank PLC 90,41,992 11(5)(iii) IDBI Bank Ltd 1,35,47,652 11(5)(iii) Interest on short term deposits with: HDFC Bank

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Housing & Urban Development Corporation 2,23,51,249 11(5)(ixa) Ltd HDFC Bank Ltd 3,34,48,993 11(5)(iii) ICICI Bank Ltd 71,25,000 11(5)(iii) Barclays Bank PLC 90,41,992 11(5)(iii) IDBI Bank Ltd 1,35,47,652 11(5)(iii) Interest on short term deposits with: HDFC Bank

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

House, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 001 Date of Application : 31.03.2015 Date of Order : 10.11. 2015 ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 22 of 51 With reference to your application dated 31.03.2015, the undersigned is directed to convey that under the proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

House, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 001 Date of Application : 31.03.2015 Date of Order : 10.11. 2015 ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 22 of 51 With reference to your application dated 31.03.2015, the undersigned is directed to convey that under the proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

House, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 001 Date of Application : 31.03.2015 Date of Order : 10.11. 2015 ITA Nos 1423, 1424 and 1535/Mum/2018 Assessment years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 22 of 51 With reference to your application dated 31.03.2015, the undersigned is directed to convey that under the proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

11. The ld. AR submitted that this issue is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case where it has been held that “7. The issue is inter-connected with Ground 1; so the issue is covered in favour of the assesse in consolidated order dated 10/11/2022 passed by the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

11. The ld. AR submitted that this issue is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case where it has been held that “7. The issue is inter-connected with Ground 1; so the issue is covered in favour of the assesse in consolidated order dated 10/11/2022 passed by the Special Bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench

VAIJANTHI MAHAVIR OZA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(IT)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Vaijanthi Mahavir Oza, Income Tax Officer- C/O. Chhajed & Doshi, (International Taxation)- 101, Hubtown Solaris, 3(3)(1) V. N.S Phadke Marg, Room No. 1628, Near East West Flyover, 16Th Floor Andheri (E), Air India Building Mumbai- 400069 Mumbai स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abepo5631J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Piyush Chhajjed Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 5799/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 23.06.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 23.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.5799/Mum/2017

1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, being buildings or lands appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house

SUMAN GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Ita Nos. 3860 & 3859/Mum/2018 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Smt. Suman Gupta, Dy. Cit Cc-4(2), 6Th New Harileela House, Air India Building, 19Th Mint Road, Fort, Vs. Floor, Room No. 1918, Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Pan No. Ahqpg 0220 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Karkhanis & Mr. Aakash Marthak & Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2023 Order

property located at Apeejay House by considering it as non businessproperty as no depreciation was claimed as non businessproperty as no depreciation was claimed as non businessproperty as no depreciation was claimed on the said business premises in its return of income filed on the said business premises in its return of income filed on the said business premises

ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. PHOENIX MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount

THE PHOENIX MILLS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.4 taken by assessee in assessment year

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

house property of Rs. 86,03,116 may kindly be deleted. Ground No. 8: 7 M/s. The Phoenix Mills Ltd. Without prejudice to Ground 1& 2 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition done by AO an amount