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).

house property excluding the portions occupied by the Assessee for the purpose of business or profession can be computed. However, the Revenue has failed to point out corresponding provision providing for Assessment Years: 2006-2007 computation of depreciation and WDV of Block of Assets excluding the WDV of the asset let out during the relevant previous year. 7.8. We note

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

DCIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n2\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills\nLease Rentals\nDividend Income\nProfit on Sale of Investment\nProfit on redemption of Debentures/Govt.\nSecurities\nProfit on sale of Debentures/\nSecurities

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\n2\n3\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills\nLease Rentals\nDividend Income\nProfit on Sale of Investment\nProfit on redemption of Debentures/Govt.\nSecurities\nProfit on sale of Debentures/Govt

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\n1,301,388,075\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\n2,761,916\nIDBI Deposits\n92,632,663\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\n774,655,522\nGovernment Securities\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\n1,225,179\nDiscount

THE DY CIT CIR 1(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills

M/S. HOUSING DEVELOP,MENT FINANCE CORPN. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ADDL CIT RG-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the three appeals by the Revenue are partly\nallowed

253,995\n51,953,437\n176,000\n484,845\n500\nCorporate Deposits\nCOD-Banks/Financial Institutions\nIDBI Deposits\nInterest on Bank Deposits\n1,301,388,075\n2,761,916\n92,632,663\n362,033,725\n4\nInterest on Investments\nDebentures\nGovernment Securities\n774,655,522\n127,946,436\n5\nOther Interest Income\nInvestment Application Money\nDiscount of Treasury Bills

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

Housing Developing Company vs DCIT (ITA No.38/2014) order dated 25/07/2014 from Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Pr. CIT vs Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. ltd. (ITA No.369 of 20015) order dated 06/07/2015, CIT vs Continental warehousing corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 58 taxman.com78(Bom.), All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. vs DCIT (2012) 23 taxman.com 103(Bom.)(SB), held that no addition

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

House of Parliament would not, however, prevent the courts from scrutinising the validity of the rules and holding them to be ultra vires if on such scrutiny the rules are found to be beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government. Thus, section 296 does not add any greater force to the rules than what they ordinarily have

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

House of Parliament would not, however, prevent the courts from scrutinising the validity of the rules and holding them to be ultra vires if on such scrutiny the rules are found to be beyond the rule-making power of the Central Government. Thus, section 296 does not add any greater force to the rules than what they ordinarily have

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

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

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

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

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

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

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

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

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

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

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

house for faculty and sample copies of requisition slips were submitted before the A.O. during the course of reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VODAFONE ESSAR DIGILINK LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

property'. It is, therefore, directed to be considered as eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act.” In view of the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, exclusion of cellsite sharing revenue of INR.0.81 Crores from the business income while computing deduction under Section 80IA of the Act cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

JAIPRAKASH L. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands\nallowed

Properties\n(AOP) [2011]10 taxmann.com 201 (Mumbai) laid down the\nrole of tribunal with respect to section 150 vide PARA 8 as\nunder(Legal PB Pg. No. 19-23):-\n“The revenue's request for direction under section 150 was\nalso devoid of legally sustainable merits. Section 150\ndoes not enable or require an appellate authority to\ngive

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

house property'. It is, therefore, directed to be considered as eligible for deduction u/s.\n80IA of the Act.”\n\nIn view of the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the\nTribunal, exclusion of cellsite sharing revenue of INR.0.81 Crores from\nthe business income while computing deduction under Section 80IA of\nthe Act cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Assessing

DAE(SY22) LEASING (IRELAND)41, DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

253 of the Constitution of India and section 90 of the Act, argued that the notification of the subsequent treaties would not automatically amend the earlier DTAAs and a separate notification was required to effectuate the impact of the subsequent DTAAs on the earlier DTAAs. The submission of the Revenue in para 8 of the Judgment, was that “any convention