ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

property of whatever description insured for any transit by land or water, or both and whether or not including warehouse risks or similar risks in addition, or as incidental to such transit, and includes any other risks customarily included among the risks insured against in marine insurance policies; Section 13(B): "miscellaneous insurance business" means the business of effecting contracts

PRIYA KAPIL TODARWAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, 30(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

80D-Rs. 25,000, Section 80G-Rs. 8,000 and Section 80TTA of Rs. 10,000/- totaling to Rs. 1,93,000/-. It was submitted that, as per Section 80A(1) In computing the total Income of an assessee, there shall be allowed from gross total income, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the deductions

GIRIRAJ KISHAN SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

House property' of Rs. 1,33,024/-from the head 'Profit and Gains from Business or Profession'. 2 Giriraj Kishan Sharma 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C1T(A) has erred in not considering the feet that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer was without considering the Deductions under Chapter

SHRI SANDEEP S SHARMA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

house property, income from business and other sources. During the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed some loan credit for which the assessee was asked to explain the identity, genuineness of the transactions and capacity of the lender. On receiving no plausible reply, the AO made addition of Rs.3 Crores u/s 68 of the Act which

SARITA UMESH KEDIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mrs. Sarita Umesh Kedia, The Income Tax Officer, 703, Panchali Shopping Centre, Ward – 3(3), Station Road Chendani Naka, Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor, Thane (W)- 400601 Vs. B-Wing, Room No. 8, Road No. 16-Z, Pan: Ajlpk2290A Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)- 400604

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a sub-broker of commodity exchange broker M/s Shilpa Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Since, the assessee had not file the return of income for the assessment year under consideration, AO issued notice

M/S WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTION PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

property is an agricultural land. According to explanation (a) agricultural land is defined as agricultural Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd land in India not being a land situated in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2. Therefore, to decide which agricultural land is exempted, one has to look

ACIT CENTRAL CIR 5(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

property is an agricultural land. According to explanation (a) agricultural land is defined as agricultural Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd land in India not being a land situated in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2. Therefore, to decide which agricultural land is exempted, one has to look

ACIT CENT. CIR 5(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

property is an agricultural land. According to explanation (a) agricultural land is defined as agricultural Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd land in India not being a land situated in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2. Therefore, to decide which agricultural land is exempted, one has to look

M/S WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

property is an agricultural land. According to explanation (a) agricultural land is defined as agricultural Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd land in India not being a land situated in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2. Therefore, to decide which agricultural land is exempted, one has to look

THE ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(4), MUMBAI. vs. WADHWA CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as learned Assessing Officer are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

property is an agricultural land. According to explanation (a) agricultural land is defined as agricultural Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd land in India not being a land situated in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub clause (iii) of clause (14) of Section 2. Therefore, to decide which agricultural land is exempted, one has to look

SHRI KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DY.CIT.C.C.2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

80D of the Act, made and sustained in the absence of its substantiation by the assessee (refer paras 12.3 and 15 of the assessment and impugned order respectively). Clearly, in the absence of any evidence, the assessee has failed to support its claim, much less prove it. No such proof/material has also been led, exhibiting the genuineness of the claim

KASHINATH TAPURIAH,KOLKATTA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the penalty appeals for all the seven years under reference are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am Sr. Appellant Respondent A.Ys.

80D of the Act, made and sustained in the absence of its substantiation by the assessee (refer paras 12.3 and 15 of the assessment and impugned order respectively). Clearly, in the absence of any evidence, the assessee has failed to support its claim, much less prove it. No such proof/material has also been led, exhibiting the genuineness of the claim