AHMED P. SURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

House property,\nincome from capital gains and income from other sources.\nThe assesse has filed the return of income for the A.Y\n2015-16 on 10.11.2015 disclosing a total income of Rs.\n10,46,460/- and the return of income was processed u/sec\n143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for\nscrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec

DCIT-CC-7(3), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SHRI MAJNI KARAMSHI PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

House International (P) Ltd ITA No.112/2018 against which the SP of the revenue was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I find merit in the contention of the appellant. The AO has doubted the creditworthiness and capacity of the lender companies to raise share capital and premium solely on the ITA No. 6128/Mum/2019 & Co. No. 45/Mum/2021 Shri Majni

DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI vs. GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

260A". Grasim Industries Ltd. 2) "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.4,39,259/- towards contribution towards local organizations, relying upon the CIT(A)' order in the assessee's own case for Α.Υ.1996-97 to 2008-09 which have not been accepted

SUPREME HIGH SPACES LLP,MUMBAI vs. NAFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Housing Pvt Ltd. From the ITR\nfiled by the assessee, it has been found that no interest on such debenture has been disclosed.\nAssessee vide this office notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 14/01/2021 was requested\nto explain the reason behind so. Assessee vide its reply dated 21/01/2021 explained that:\n\"The firm had made investment

ACIT -893) (1) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. TRIPLE SECURITIES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

property in question is not of the nature covered by section 50C(1) of the Act. Therefore, on this point itself, we set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.” 21. To the same effect are decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

property in execution of a decree shall be applicable in its-entirety except such provision therein which may not be practicable to be applied. 16. The case of the revenue is that the expression 'so far as may be apply' indicates that it is not expected to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section

DCIT CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project

DCIT CEN CIR 10, MUMBAI vs. KEYSTONE REALTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project

JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project

KEYSTONE REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Properties- (2013) 353 ITR 36 (BOM), Bramha Associates (supra) and Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT- (2005) 148 TaxMan.Com 468 SC in support of her contentions. 11. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 12. The reasoning of the ITAT that the exclusion of the 5 residential units from out of the 352 residential units in the entire housing project

DCIT 9(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the C

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

260A, 2nd Floor, Afcons House, 16, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Azad Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Nagar, P.O. Post Box No. 11978, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400053. PAN : AAACA9067G Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistri / Nitesh Joshi, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri P. Sudhakar Naik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement

ITO(E)-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J N TATA ENDOWMENT FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATION OF INDIANS, FORT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Maharashtra-400001. PAN NO. AAATJ 0085 C Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sukhsagar Syal/Atual Suraiya Revenue by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08/07/2024 Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS WARD 1 4, MUMBAI vs. J N TATA ENDOWMENT FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATION OF INDIANS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Smt. Renu Jauhriito(Exemptions) Ward -14, Jn Tata Endowment Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, For The Higher Mtnl Telephone Exchange Education Of Indians, Buillding, Peddar Road, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mumbai -400026. House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaatc0085C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. PAN/GIR No. AAATC0085C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant by Shri Krishnakumar.Sr.DR Respondentby Shri.Atul Suraiya.AR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 23.08.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed,\nand the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

260A\".\n\n2) \"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\ndeleting the disallowance of Rs.4,39,259/- towards contribution towards local\norganizations, relying upon the CIT(A)' order in the assessee's own case for\nA.Y.1996-97 to 2008-09 which have not been accepted by the department and\nfurther appeal