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 ()

III, 25(1)(1), Vs. Nariman Point, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43 Mumbai-400021. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AABTJ 0513 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/ Mr. Pinak Shah Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR : 25/06/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

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 ()

III, 25(1)(1), Vs. Nariman Point, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43 Mumbai-400021. G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. AABTJ 0513 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Aggarwal/ Mr. Pinak Shah Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR : 25/06/2024 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/07/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT

DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. JIVESH DEVELOPERS & PROPERTIES P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A”. That as the aforesaid amendment to Section 153C is not retrospective in nature and is applicable only w.e.f 01.06.2015, therefore, the case of the present assessee company would be regulated by the pre-amended provisions as were available on the statute till 30.05.2015. We find that

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

25,96,287/- received on account of dividend income is claimed as exempt under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. However, this income forms a part of the income from trust property and, therefore, can only be claimed to be exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act if applied for charity and not under section 10

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

25,96,287/- received on account of dividend income is claimed as exempt under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. However, this income forms a part of the income from trust property and, therefore, can only be claimed to be exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act if applied for charity and not under section 10

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

25,96,287/- received on account of dividend income is claimed as exempt under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act. However, this income forms a part of the income from trust property and, therefore, can only be claimed to be exempt under section 11 of the Income Tax Act if applied for charity and not under section 10

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

25-08-2008 and para 30 of F&U guidelines dated \n28/09/2006. \nd) Regulation 3 of IRDA (Licensing of Corporate Agent) \nRegulation, 2002 and clause 21 of IRDA circular \nref.017/IRDA/Circular/CA guidelines/2005 dated \n14.07.2005 by entering into additional relationship with \ntied corporate agent of another general insurer. \ne) Regulation 7 (C) of IRDA (Registration of Companies) \nRegulations, 2000. \nFor the AY.2014-15

ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI vs. AMBER ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

25(1) Vs. M/s. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 PAN/GIR No. AALFA3071G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri V. Vidyadhar Assessee by Shri Jayant R Bhatt Date of Hearing 07/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement 09/05/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed

ASST CIT CIR 6(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ASK INVESTMENT MANAGERS P.LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2012-13 Acit M/S Ask Investment Circle-6(1)(2), Managers Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ R. No.536, 5Th Floor, 1St Floor Bandbox House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. Ab Road, Worli, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400030 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aafca2302P Shri Nitin Waghmode-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri J.D. Mistri Sr. Advocate

25-2-2014 the assessee filed cross- objections, taking following grounds: ITA. No.534/Mum/2017 9 M/s Ask Investment Managers Pvt. Ltd. “1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 14A the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") to the extent

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

iii) Acknowledging Trusts letter dated 11.03.2015, a show cause notice dated 13.03.2015 was issued by the CIT(E) proposing to cancel/withdraw the Trusts registration under section 12A of the ITA. The Trust was called for a hearing on Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 11 of 36 20.03.2015 on which date the Trust confirmed its agreement to the cancellation/withdrawal

ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 18.03.2016, had withdrawn the assessee‘s claim for deduction of Rs. 26,69,84,644/- u/s 80IB of the Act. The A.O had held the assessee to have failed to carry out a cumulative satisfaction of the requisite conditions contemplated in Sec. 80IB(10

HARSHVARDHAN CONSTRUCTIONS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(5), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodharshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D (Appellant) (Respondent) Income Tax Officer Vs. Harshvardhan Construvctions Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor , 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D Harshvardhan Constructions Income Tax Officer 11, Happy Home, 244 Waterfield Road; Ward 23(1)(5), 1St Floor, Vs. Bandra West, Mumbai – 400 050. Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 007. Pan– Aadfh6590D

reassessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 18.03.2016, had withdrawn the assessee‘s claim for deduction of Rs. 26,69,84,644/- u/s 80IB of the Act. The A.O had held the assessee to have failed to carry out a cumulative satisfaction of the requisite conditions contemplated in Sec. 80IB(10

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

iii) Acknowledging Trusts letter dated 11.03.2015, a show cause notice dated 13.03.2015 was issued by the CIT(E) proposing to cancel/withdraw the Trusts registration under section 12A of the ITA. The Trust was called for a hearing on 20.03.2015 on which date the Trust confirmed its agreement to the cancellation/withdrawal of the registration. Copy of the said letter dated

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

iii) Acknowledging Trusts letter dated 11.03.2015, a show cause notice dated 13.03.2015 was issued by the CIT(E) proposing to cancel/withdraw the Trusts registration under section 12A of the ITA. The Trust was called for a hearing on Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 11 of 36 20.03.2015 on which date the Trust confirmed its agreement to the cancellation/withdrawal

M/S.BALAJI BULLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-40, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Balaji Bullion & Commodities The Dy. Commissioner Of (India) Private Limited Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcbo236F Balaji Universal Tradelinks P. The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income–Tax, 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Central Circle–40, Vs. House Zavri Baazar, Mumbai Mumbai-400 002

25,00,000/- on account of Alleged Bogus Share Application money under section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 as taxable income. Looking to the facts and in the circumstances of your Appellant's case the said addition made by the Ld. A.O. is incorrect and invalid and ought to be deleted as the provisions of section 68 has been

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

iii) Acknowledging Trusts letter dated 11.03.2015, a show cause notice dated 13.03.2015 was issued by the CIT(E) proposing to cancel/withdraw the Trusts registration under section 12A of the ITA. The Trust was called for a hearing on 20.03.2015 on which date the Trust confirmed its agreement to the cancellation/withdrawal of the registration. Copy of the said letter dated

RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF),MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

iii. Transactions are being carried out through SEBI registered stockbrokers and Members of BSE, a recognized stock exchange of India and through Scheduled Commercial Banks. iv. Payment is received through banking channels from registered broker. v. Complied all the terms and conditions of section 10(38) i.e. shares are held by the assessee for more than 12 months (approx