INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

exemption\nhas been formed. It is, therefore, necessary to construe the expression\n\"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of the definition of that\nexpression as contained in Section 2(n) of the Cooperative Societies Act. The\nsaid provision reads as under:-\n\"2. (n) 'Member' means a person who joined

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

section 44AB\nSection 144, read with sections 44AB and\n68, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Best\njudgment assessment (Scope of)\n Assessment year 2009-10 During\nassessment proceedings, assessee could\nnot produce confirmation letter from large\nnumber of creditors in respect of amount\nborrowed Assessee claimed that it had\nnot maintained books of account and,\ntherefore, amount in question

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

exemption\nhas been formed. It is, therefore, necessary to construe the expression\n\"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of the definition of that\nexpression as contained in Section 2(n) of the Cooperative Societies Act. The\nsaid provision reads as under:-\n\n\"2. (n) 'Member' means a person who joined

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

exemption\nhas been formed. It is, therefore, necessary to construe the expression\n\"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of the definition of that\nexpression as contained in Section 2(n) of the Cooperative Societies Act. The\nsaid provision reads as under:-\n\"2. (n) 'Member' means a person who joined

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

exemption\nhas been formed. It is, therefore, necessary to construe the expression\n\"members\" in Section 80-P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in the light of the definition of that\nexpression as contained in Section 2(n) of the Cooperative Societies Act. The\nsaid provision reads as under:-\"2. (n) 'Member' means a person who joined

UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK ,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

68,736/- may be deleted and accepted as exempted may be deleted and accepted as exempted agricultural receipts. agricultural receipts. (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/ (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/- BEING EXPENDITURE ON BEING EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT

DCIT-42(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI UDAY GHANSHYAM NAIK, MUMBAI

In the result, the cross

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19

68,736/- may be deleted and accepted as exempted may be deleted and accepted as exempted agricultural receipts. agricultural receipts. (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/ (3) ADDITION OF RS. 12,09,809/- BEING EXPENDITURE ON BEING EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN & INV. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seeth assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seetharamamma [1965) 57 aramamma [1965) 57 IT 532 at page 536). But, in view of Section 68

FOREVER FLOURISHING FIN. & INV. PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CC)-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2012

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seeth assessee. [See : Parimisetti Seetharamamma [1965) 57 aramamma [1965) 57 IT 532 at page 536). But, in view of Section 68

DCIT(CENTRAL CIRCLE)-3(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JUICY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS AVAADA VENTURES PVT. LTD.), MUMBAI

section 68 of the Act, the\nAssessee is required to explain the nature and also the source of\nthe credit appearing in its books. The explanation offered by the\nAssessee is, in his opinion is not satisfactory and therefore, the sum\nso credited may be charged to income tax, as the income of the\nAssessee of that previous year

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

68,34,691, was deducted from exempt dividend income of ` 223,49,79,266 and on the balance amount of ` 11,81,44,575, the Assessing Officer allowed exemption under section

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

exemption of ₹.47,76,75,319/-. The breakup of\nexempt income is as under:\nSr No.\n1\n2.\n3.\nNature of Income\nDividend from investments in mutual funds\nDividend from venture capital undertaking\nInterest from Venture Capital Undertaking.\nTotal\nAmount\n1,68,97,076\n8,23,05,575\n37,84,72,668\n47,76,75,319\nExempt

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 10(21) and that the AO has taken one possible view and has allowed the exemption to the assessee. The ld. AR relied on the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Association of Surgeons of India Vs. DDIT (Exemption)-1 (2017) 82 taxamann.com 68

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

68 to 69C would be applicable in addition to the computation of income under these sections. We, therefore, reject the argument of learned Departmental Representative that addition under section 69 for excess 15 Oberoi Foundation investment has to be independently carried out notwithstanding exemption

VIJAYA PRAKASH NAGORI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 32(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68

DCIT CIR 3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. TULIP HOTELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 3(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., R.No.609, 6Th Floor Chandermukhi Building Aayakar Bhavan (Basement), Behind The M.K.Road, Oberoi Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaact9446Q Appellant) .. Respondent)

68,890/-. The assessee's assessment was completed u/s. 143 (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 15.03.2014, assessing an income of 2 M/s.Tulip Hotels Pvt.Ltd., Rs.61,16,28,856/-. The A.O. while completing the assessment made the following additions:- 1. Disallowance u/s.14A of the Act of Rs. 11,31,075/- 2. Non-acceptance of the assessee

KALPNA MUKESH RUIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), MUMBAI

The appeal stands dismissed

section 68 in respect of capital gain on sale of shares of M/s Finalysis Credit and Guarantee Ltd of Rs. 1,63,76,3217- and M/s Essar India Ltd of Rs. 4,06,13,865/- totaling Rs. 5,69,90,186/- which is declared as long term capital gain exempt