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

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

u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay vide registration no. TR/10925 dated 15.03.1976 3. However, it is seen from the records

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

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

u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay vide registration no. TR/10925 dated 15.03.1976 3. However, it is seen from the records

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

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

u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay vide registration no. TR/10925 dated 15.03.1976 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page

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

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

u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay vide registration no. TR/10925 dated 15.03.1976 3. However, it is seen from the records

POOJA HARDWARE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

147 &148 in our case are invalid. our case are invalid. We may state here that in the year ended 31. We may state here that in the year ended 31.3.2012, we made 3.2012, we made payments totaling t Rs 1 cr in four equal installments to the above payments totaling t Rs 1 cr in four equal installments

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

1)(ii) w.e.f. April 1, 2016 (which allows claim in succeeding year), is clarificatory in nature and would apply to all pending cases. 106. We also find that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Grasim Bhiwani Textiles Limited vs ACIT (ITA 790 & 791/Mum/2014), has also allowed the claim of spill over depreciation observing as under

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

reassessment or re computation under section 147; c. an order being an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A; d. an order under section 201; e. an order being an intimation under sub-section (6A) of section 206C; f. an order under sub-section (1) of section 206CB; g. an order imposing a penalty under Chapter

M/S CRESCENT ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 14 (1)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.1252 & 1253/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Crescent Organics Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Windsor,2Nd Floor, Cst Road, 14(1)(2), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kalina,Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 098 Pan – Aaacc1690D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.R Respondent By: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.12.2020

12A in the subsequent year which was earlier granted to the trust u/s. 35(1)(ii) to avail exemption of donation made by the appellant company does not affect the availability and genuineness of the claim made by the appellant company as held by Hon supreme court in case of Chotatingrai Tea & Ors Etc., 258 ITR 529. The Appellant Company

YASH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 27(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yash Developers, Dcit-27(3), 1St Flr Anand, 7Th Road, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Maryland Apartment, D.K. Vs. Station Complex, Sandhu Marg, Chembur, Vashi-400703 Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaafy 6171 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harmesh Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

1; (1975) 2 SCR 345. Dealing with the point raised, this court held as under : raised, this court held as under : "The other attack that the rectification order is beyond "The other attack that the rectification order is beyond "The other attack that the rectification order is beyond the point of time provided in rule 38 of the Mysore

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

u/s. 11 of the Act on the surplus accumulated by the assessee, which is contrary to the 2nd proviso to section 12A of the Act and the said provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: Section 12A(2) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Where an application has been made on or after

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

u/s. 11 of the Act on the surplus accumulated by the assessee, which is contrary to the 2nd proviso to section 12A of the Act and the said provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: Section 12A(2) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Where an application has been made on or after