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 ()

10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section 14A, Similarly, with regard

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 ()

10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG, respectively is deleted. Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal Accordingly, ground no. 2 of the appeal is allowed.” 3.8 Similarly, with regard to the disallowance under section 14A, Similarly, with regard

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1

JM FINANCIAL PROPERTY FUND I,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

reassessment proceeding be held as without jurisdiction, bad in law and void jurisdiction, bad in law and void-ab-initio. Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1 to 3 Ground Nos. 4 to 10 are without prejudice to Ground Nos. 1

ACIT 23-1, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 14/12/2018, under Section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notices, Assessee filed return of income on 15/03/2018 declaring total income of INR 10

ACIT-231, MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No. 6 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act. Subsequently, reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice, dated 14/12/2018, under Section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notices, Assessee filed return of income on 15/03/2018 declaring total income of INR 10

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

10,683/- under section 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of the Act. The assessee also claimed an amount of Rs. 81,73,55,929/- as provision for doubtful debts under section 36(1)(viia)(c) of the Act at 5% of total income. The AO held that the claim of bad-debts under section 36(1)(vii) is subject

ACIT, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS vs. MILESTONE REAL ESTATE FUND, MUMBAI

1) of the Act. Subsequently, reassessment\nproceedings were initiated under Section 147 of the Act by\nissuance of notice, dated 14/12/2018, under Section 148 of the\nAct. In response to the aforesaid notices, Assessee filed return of\nincome on 15/03/2018 declaring total income of INR\n10,85,28,560/- and revised its claim of exempt income to INR\n136

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

1. erred in filing appeals without complying with the regulations and with defect and filed multiple appeals with the same grounds as raised for the present appeal, which is wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to law. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in issuing notices for reassessment proceedings under Section 148A, conducting the reassessment under Sections 148A and 148, and/or

KUDOS FINANCE AND INVESTMENT PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

10. The claim for deduction for the „Provision for bad & doubtful debts‟ allowed by way of Intimation Order, dated 28/04/2020, in the case of the Assessee constitutes an incorrect claim apparent from information in the return since the deduction allowed under Section 36(1)(viia) of the Act exceeded the specified statutory limit (expressed as percentage of total income). Therefore

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

1) of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 (\"the Act\") for the assessment year declaring total income of\n*NIL after claiming exemption of ₹.47,76,75,319/-. The breakup of\nexempt income is as under:\nSr No.\n1\n2.\n3.\nNature of Income\nDividend from investments in mutual funds\nDividend from venture capital undertaking\nInterest from Venture Capital Undertaking.\nTotal

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

10. On plain reading of section 199 of the Act and rules mades thereunder, it is appare thereunder, it is apparent that sub section 2 and 3 of the section nt that sub section 2 and 3 of the section are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Further, sub are not applicable to the facts

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

10. On plain reading of section 199 of the Act and rules mades thereunder, it is appare thereunder, it is apparent that sub section 2 and 3 of the section nt that sub section 2 and 3 of the section are not applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Further, sub are not applicable to the facts

SURENDRA GARG HUF ,MUMBAI vs. ITO- 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

10(38)", "Section 68", "Section 153A", "Section 153C", "Section 148", "Section 132", "Section 132A", "Section 131" ], "issues": "1. Whether the reassessment

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: tax Act, 1961: Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR expenditure of Rs.24,98,000/ expenditure of Rs.24