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 ()

14 and 2014-15 (six- year limitation for amounts above INR 50 lakh), as these would r limitation for amounts above INR 50 lakh), as these would r limitation for amounts above INR 50 lakh), as these would have otherwise become time have otherwise become time-barred during the COVID exclusion barred during the COVID exclusion period. However

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 ()

14 and 2014-15 (six- year limitation for amounts above INR 50 lakh), as these would r limitation for amounts above INR 50 lakh), as these would r limitation for amounts above INR 50 lakh), as these would have otherwise become time have otherwise become time-barred during the COVID exclusion barred during the COVID exclusion period. However

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

14,178 less INR 8,29,19,134] by denying the exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10(23FB) of the Act in respect of the income received from investment made in the Venture Capital Undertaking, and addition of INR 8,29,91,434/- by denying the exemption claimed by the Assessee under Section 10

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

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

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 ()

14 August 2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and therefore, is invalid, non Taxes and therefore, is invalid, non-est and is liable to be quashed. est and is liable to be quashed. Ground No. 3: Reopening of the assessment is bad in law Ground No. 3: Reopening of the assessment is bad in law Ground

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 ()

14 August 2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and therefore, is invalid, non Taxes and therefore, is invalid, non-est and is liable to be quashed. est and is liable to be quashed. Ground No. 3: Reopening of the assessment is bad in law Ground No. 3: Reopening of the assessment is bad in law Ground

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

DCIT - CC 3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

DCIT - CC 3 (1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

WIND WORLD INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing

WIND WORLD INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

reassessment was pending as on the date of search.” 02. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a company incorporated in joint collaboration with the German Principal Enercon GmbH holding 56% of shares and Mehra family holding 44% share. Earlier it was known as Enercon India limited Group and is engaged in the business of manufacturing