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

155-167 of LPB) (reproduced below) has held that the activity of the authority does not come within the ambit of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Similar view has been expressed by other High Courts which are enumerated below. Further, the reasoning given by the Tribunal in Para 27 of the decision that MIDC is carrying

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

155-167 of LPB) (reproduced below) has held that the activity of the authority does not come within the ambit of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Similar view has been expressed by other High Courts which are enumerated below. Further, the reasoning given by the Tribunal in Para 27 of the decision that MIDC is carrying

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

155-167 of LPB) (reproduced below) has held that the activity of the authority does not come within the ambit of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Similar view has been expressed by other High Courts which are enumerated below. Further, the reasoning given by the Tribunal in Para 27 of the decision that MIDC is carrying

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

155-167 of LPB) (reproduced below) has held that the activity of the authority does not come within the ambit of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Similar view has been expressed by other High Courts which are enumerated below. Further, the reasoning given by the Tribunal in Para 27 of the decision that MIDC is carrying

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 ()

155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

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 ()

155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

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 ()

155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

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 ()

155/- made by AO on account of 14A made by AO on account of 14A disallowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning llowance for expenses incurred towards earning exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section 44 exempt income without appreciating the fact that section

M/S. NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CUR 7(1),

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanpiramal Enterprises Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 7(1) (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan Piramal Healthcare Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle – 7(1) Vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd Aayakar Bhyavan (Formerly Known As Mumbai – 400 020. Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (Before Known As Nicholas Piramal Ind) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn4538P Assessee By : Mr.Ronak Doshi & Ms.Manshi Padhiyar.Ar Revenue By : Mr.S.N.Kabra.Dr

House Property' and thereby allow the deduction u/s. ITA No. 769 & 1954/Mum/2008 M/s Nicholas Piramal India Ltd, Mumbai. 24(a) of the Act. GROUND VIII: Additional ground of Appeal: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional ground raised by the Appellant during Appellate proceedings as regard

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD ( CORPORATE FINANCE DIVISION),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 6(3), MUMBAI

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

15,698/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued the Assessee on 15/10/2007. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide Assessment Order, dated 26/12/2008, assessing the total income of the Assessee at INR.11,06,04,76,832/- after making certain additions

ACIT 6(3), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

house property\nexcluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of\nbusiness or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has\nfailed to point out corresponding provision providing for\ncomputation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding\nthe WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year.\n7. 8. We note that Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROMELL HOUSING LLP, MUMBAI

In the result, the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed, while the\nRevenue's Appeal is dismissed

Housing LLP,\n101, B-Wing, Gharkul Co-op. Society,\nAzad Road, Vile Parle East,\nMumbai - 400057,\nMaharashtra\nPAN: AATFR3895F\nCross Objector\n(Original Respondent)\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle – 4(4),\nMumbai - 400021,\nMaharashtra\nVS.\nRespondent\n(Original Appellant)\nAssessee by : Shri Nitesh Joshi\nRevenue by :Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR\nDate of Hearing – 25/09/2024\nDate of Order

SHRI VIPUL OTARMAL JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER 19.3.1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Jagadish

House, ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400004 PAN : AABPJ3246L v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 19(3)(1) Piramal Chamber, Near Bharatmata Cinema, ……………. Respondent Parel, Mumbai – 400012 Assessee by : Shri Hansraj Sanghvi Revenue by : Shri Abhirama Karthikeyan, SR. DR Date of Hearing – 02/04/2026 Date of Order – 08/04/2026 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal

RENU RATNAKAR BHATTACHARYA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

15 . 12 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The appellant, Ms. Renu Ratnakar Bhattacharya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred

SULOCHANA SAIJAN MODI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh& Shri Om Prakash Kantsulochana Saijan Modi, Ito, A-501, Akar Apartment, National E- बनाम/ Film City Road, Malad Assessment Centre, Vs. East, Mumbai-400097. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0887F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shashi Tulsian ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 11/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant - Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.01.2023 Passed By Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -

house as on 22.11.2010 at agreed cost of Rs.83,20,500/-. He referred to the copy of the allotment letter, which is available at page 7 to 10 of the Paper Book. He further submitted that at the time of booking, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid vide cheque dated 11.11.2010. The property was got registered

M/S. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT (IT)1(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

property of the Housing Board. It was held that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively on the welfare of the employees and, therefore, constituted legitimate business expenditure. As the assessee company acquired no ownership rights in the tenements, this Court said that the expenditure was incurred merely with a view to carry on the business of the company more

RAJESH R. SAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

15) of section 155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of sub-clause (b) as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections : (emphasis supplied by us) Provided further that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money or any property received

AILA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Aila Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 8F/95, Sonawala Building, Sleater Road, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400 007. Pan: Aakca 5414B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 12(1)-1, Room No. 226/262, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

House Property and Rs. 8614400/- u/s. 69 of the Act under the Head Income from Other Sources. The Assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. The assessee is further aggrieved with this order of Ld. CIT (A), preferred the present

BENUDHAR GOKULANAND BISWAL,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMET CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebenudhar Gokulanand Vs. National E Assessment Biswal, Centre, H 302, Room.No 401,2 Nd Shanti Complex, Floor, E Ramp, Saki Vihar Road, Jawaharlal Nehru Powai, Stadium, Mumbai – 400072, New Delhi-110003. Pan/Gir No. : Adopb9106B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Tanmay Phadke.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Naina K Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per The Law, The National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["The Learned Commissioner (Appeals)]Despite Concluding That The Agreement For Sale Was Benudhar Gokulanand Biswal., Mumbai. Entered Into On 13.07.2009 (I.E. Prior To 01.04.2017), Failed To Appreciate That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Which Was Inserted Vide Finance Act, 2017 & Made Expressly Applicable From 01.04.2017 Are Not Applicable To The Facts Under Consideration. The Addition Of Rs. 9,88,343/(50% Of Rs. 19,76,686/-) As Confirmed By The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act Is Bad In Law & May Be Deleted.

Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited (HDIL) (seller) had changed the year of purchase manually from 2009 to 2017. HDIL is currently under investigation in Mumbai for various frauds with Banks and other legal agencies. Copy of purchase agreement is attached. 4The M/s HDIL (seller) had changed the agreement date to 2017 from 2009on the top page of the agreement However