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 ()

12, 2013-14 and 2014 14 and 2014-15, the disallowance of exemption 15, the disallowance of exemption claimed by the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG

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 ()

12, 2013-14 and 2014 14 and 2014-15, the disallowance of exemption 15, the disallowance of exemption claimed by the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in the appellant u/s. 10(15), 10(34), and 10(38) in respect of interest income, dividend and LTCG

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)

reassessment proceedings but deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by accepting Assessee‟s claim for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act and Section 10(35) of the Act. 5. Now the Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. During

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)

reassessment proceedings but deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer by accepting Assessee‟s claim for exemption under Section 10(23FB) of the Act and Section 10(35) of the Act. 5. Now the Revenue has preferred the present appeal against the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above. 6. During

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 proceedings as being without jurisdiction and and bad in law. The ground Nos s. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee are in relation to merit of the disallowance appeal of the assessee are in relation to merit of the disallowance appeal of the assessee are in relation to merit of the disallowance made by the Assessing

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 proceedings as being without jurisdiction and and bad in law. The ground Nos s. 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee are in relation to merit of the disallowance appeal of the assessee are in relation to merit of the disallowance appeal of the assessee are in relation to merit of the disallowance made by the Assessing

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

reassessment proceedings as\nwell as additions made by the Assessing officer on merits. Vide\nOrder, dated 01/12/2013, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal\npreferred by the Assessee. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of\nreassessment proceedings but deleted the additions made by the\nAssessing Officer by accepting Assessee's claim for exemption\nunder Section 10(23FB

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

section 143(3) on 30.12.2018 after due enquiry and accepting\nthe returned income.\n5. Subsequently, Assessee's case was reopened by issuance of notice\nu/s. 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. It was brought to the notice of the\nPage No. 2\nITA NO.91/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)\nAditya Birla Private Equity Trust\nAssessing Officer the decision of ITAT and after

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BANDRA MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

12, and 13 of the Income Tax Act are the governing provisions and relate to exemption claimed by charitable institutions, then, the assessee has no option to choose whether it wants to avail the exemption under section 10(33) or section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He relied upon a circular of 1968 issued by the Central Board

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

12, and 13 of the Income Tax Act are the governing provisions and relate to exemption claimed by charitable institutions, then, the assessee has no option to choose whether it wants to avail the exemption under section 10(33) or section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He relied upon a circular of 1968 issued by the Central Board

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

12, and 13 of the Income Tax Act are the governing provisions and relate to exemption claimed by charitable institutions, then, the assessee has no option to choose whether it wants to avail the exemption under section 10(33) or section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He relied upon a circular of 1968 issued by the Central Board

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

12 of the Paper\nBook)\nBill for purchase of shares (Page No. 13 of the Paper book)\n\nOn the basis of above, it was submitted that the Assessee has\ndischarge the initial onus cast upon the Assessee under Section 68\nof the Act to explain nature and source of credit in the books of\naccounts of the Assessee

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

12 of the Paper\nBook)\nBill for purchase of shares (Page No. 13 of the Paper book)\nOn the basis of above, it was submitted that the Assessee has\ndischarge the initial onus cast upon the Assessee under Section 68\nof the Act to explain nature and source of credit in the books of\naccounts of the Assessee

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12 The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association “From the aforesaid definitions it is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an income tax officer acting in accordance with the law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings \nwere initiated within a period of four years from the end of the \nrelevant assessment year and therefore, First Proviso to Section \n147 of the Act was not applicable. Placing reliance upon \nParagraph 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 of the order impugned, the Learned \nDepartmental Representative submitted that the reasons \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 under section 194A of the Act, therefore, it was alleged that income chargeable to tax within section 40(a)(ia) had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act. In response to the notice issued under section

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 under section 194A of the Act, therefore, it was alleged that income chargeable to tax within section 40(a)(ia) had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act. In response to the notice issued under section

ROYAL TWINKLE STAR CLUB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

10, 2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13 2013–14, 2014–15 & 2015–16 under section 194A of the Act, therefore, it was alleged that income chargeable to tax within section 40(a)(ia) had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act. In response to the notice issued under section