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

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

reassessment u/s. 147 of the Act.\n2.2 The Appellant prays that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act as\nwell as consequent order be quashed.\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS\nGROUND NO. III: DENIAL OF EXEMPTION US. IO(23FB) OF\nTHE ACT:\n3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLd. CIT(A) erred

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

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

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

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

iii)\nin\ncase any incriminating material is\nfound/unearthed, even, in case of\nunabated/completed assessments, the AO would\nassume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the\n'total income' taking into consideration the\nincriminating material unearthed during the\nsearch and the other material available with the\nAO including the income declared in the returns;\nand\n\n(iv)\nin case

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

iii) in case any incriminating material is\nfound/unearthed, even, in case\nof\nunabated/completed assessments, the AO would\nassume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the\n'total income' taking into consideration the\nincriminating material unearthed during the\nsearch and the other material available with the\nAO including the income declared in the returns;\nand\n(iv) in case no incriminating

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

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

ATUL SHAMJI BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee for the

reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and\nissued notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the aforesaid notice,\nthe assessee filed his return of income and statutory notices under section\n143(2) as well as section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the\nassessee. The AO vide order dated 28/12/2018 passed

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed thereafter. Within the grounds on the merits of the case, assessee has made an alternative claim without prejudice, by resorting to allowability of deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act. 10. Before we delve on the issue, we take note of the factual matrix of the transaction under taken by the assessee for claiming deduction of interest

TATA STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed thereafter. Within the grounds on the merits of the case, assessee has made an alternative claim without prejudice, by resorting to allowability of deduction u/s. 57(iii) of the Act. 10. Before we delve on the issue, we take note of the factual matrix of the transaction under taken by the assessee for claiming deduction of interest

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee was accepted as it is. 010. For assessment year 2014 – 15, return of income was filed on 6/1/2017 in response to notice and section 153A of the income tax act at ₹ 28,394,060/– for which notice under section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017

MOHAN GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRLE - 5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee was accepted as it is. 010. For assessment year 2014 – 15, return of income was filed on 6/1/2017 in response to notice and section 153A of the income tax act at ₹ 28,394,060/– for which notice under section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee was accepted as it is. 010. For assessment year 2014 – 15, return of income was filed on 6/1/2017 in response to notice and section 153A of the income tax act at ₹ 28,394,060/– for which notice under section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DY CIT -CC-5(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

25,267,303/–. Thus, except the income from property the total income of the assessee was accepted as it is. 010. For assessment year 2014 – 15, return of income was filed on 6/1/2017 in response to notice and section 153A of the income tax act at ₹ 28,394,060/– for which notice under section 143 (2) was issued on 24/1/2017