SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, 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

11(5)(ix) of the Act is reproduced hereunder: "Income from property held for charitable or religious purpos "Income from property held for charitable or religious purpos "Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. (5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money (5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money (5

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

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

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

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

5(2) of the Act in case of non-residents were not presented before higher judicial authorities and have not been considered in the decisions referred in the beginning of this Note. 9-5(i) It has already been mentioned above that reference to section 54 is made in the charging section 45, and hence it is a part

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

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

5\nITA No. 3395, 3396, 3397, 3398/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18\nArihant Developers, Mumbai\nwhere the main object of the assessee company was to acquire properties\nand earn income by letting the same, said income was to be brought to tax as\nbusiness income and not income from house property. Accordingly, AO taxed\nthe

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be applied in certain conditions as laid down in the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act. It is pertinent to mention here that if any part of the property

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be applied in certain conditions as laid down in the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act. It is pertinent to mention here that if any part of the property

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be applied in certain conditions as laid down in the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act. It is pertinent to mention here that if any part of the property

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot be applied in certain conditions as laid down in the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act. It is pertinent to mention here that if any part of the property

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 with respect to 5 properties was added at ₹ 429,223/– and total income was computed at ₹ ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee

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 with respect to 5 properties was added at ₹ 429,223/– and total income was computed at ₹ ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee

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 with respect to 5 properties was added at ₹ 429,223/– and total income was computed at ₹ ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee

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 with respect to 5 properties was added at ₹ 429,223/– and total income was computed at ₹ ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee

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 with respect to 5 properties was added at ₹ 429,223/– and total income was computed at ₹ ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee

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 with respect to 5 properties was added at ₹ 429,223/– and total income was computed at ₹ ITA No. 2089, 709 to 713 & 718 Mum/2023 A.Y. 2010-11, 14-15, 11-12, 12-13, 13-14, 15-16, 16-17 Mohan Thakurdas Guranani 25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee