TOWNSHIP REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartownship Real Estate V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Developers Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax– 6, Room No. C-62, Vibgyor Tower, Bandra 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Kurla Complex, Bandra - East, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai –400 051, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct7356E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

section 80G of the Act of CSR expense amounting to Rs.20,31,500/-, The AO was directed to make an enquiry in this matter and reassess the income after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Before us, the ld.DR has relied on the impugned order while ld.AR has contented that deduction was correctly made claiming that

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

iii) specifically provided that in respect of income of which the court of wards, the in respect of income of which the court of wards, the in respect of income of which the court of wards, the Administrator -General , the official trustee or any receiver or General , the official trustee or any receiver or General , the official trustee

STRATA GEOSYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Strata Geosystems (India) P. Ltd. Pcit Plot No. A-15/16, Sabnam 6Th Floor House, Central Cross Road B Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Andheri East M.K. Road Mumbai-400 093. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaics3717K Appellant Respondent

5 allowed deduction of Rs.15,00,000 under Section 80G in respect of amounts that were part of the assessee's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) obligations under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. Under the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure, though mandatory under Section 135 of the Companies Act, is specifically excluded

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

80G of the Act of expenses amount to Rs.3,85,25,000/- subject to fulfillment of requisite conditions. So, we find no infirmity in the impugned appellate order related to this ground. The ground of the revenue stands dismissed. 11 ITA Nos 1601 & 3038. /Mum/2025 Hubtown Limited 12. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue Ground no. 1(iii) & (iv) are dismissed

HUBTOWN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

80G of the Act of expenses amount to Rs.3,85,25,000/- subject to fulfillment of requisite conditions. So, we find no infirmity in the impugned appellate order related to this ground. The ground of the revenue stands dismissed. 11 ITA Nos 1601 & 3038. /Mum/2025 Hubtown Limited 12. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue Ground no. 1(iii) & (iv) are dismissed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

5,89,82,022, which was originally disallowed as CSR expenses was again claimed at Rs. 2,14,15,000 through the route of 80G deductions, as mentioned in the computation itself. Since both CSR expense and 80G donations are two different mode of ensuring fund for public welfare, hence treating the same expense under two different heads would defeat

SBI DFHI LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, without appreciating the fact that mere adopting of one view out of two possible views based on the specific inquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer in respect of the issue under consideration cannot render the order so passed to be erroneous, though

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DCIT- 3(4) , MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

DCIT-3(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

reassess the company's income, then it would have stated in section 115J that 'income of the company as accepted by the Assessing Officer'. In the absence of the same and on the language of section 115J, it will have to held that view taken by the Tribunal is correct and the High Court has erred in reversing the said

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

reassessment proceedings, two disallowances have been made, one relating to claim of deduction u/s.80G and the other for disallowance of interest. 6.1. For the first issue relating to disallowance of deduction claimed u/s.80G of Rs.31,55,000/-, relevant fact is that assessee claimed deduction of Rs.31,55,000/- u/s. 80G being 50% of Corporate Social Responsibility Expenditure (CSR) of Rs.63