M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 is prospective\nin nature.\nHon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT vs. Chain House\nInternational (P) Ltd., order dated 07.08.2018, decision reported in\n98 taxmann.com47 has held at para 52 as under-\n\"Issuing the share at a premium was a commercial\ndecision. It is the prerogative of the Board of Directors

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

68,97,076\n8,23,05,575\n37,84,72,668\n47,76,75,319\nExempt u/s\n10(35)\n10(34)\n10(23FB)\n4. The case of the assessee was selected under complete scrutiny\nthrough CASS and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer\nunder section 143(3) on 30.12.2018 after due enquiry and accepting\nthe returned income

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 of income under sections 11 to 13. 21. Now, we come

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3,515,120/– with

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3,515,120/– with

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3,515,120/– with

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3,515,120/– with

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3,515,120/– with

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3,515,120/– with

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

68. The first ground of appeal is with respect to the deletion of the disallowance of deduction under section 10 B of ₹ 3,515,120/– with

INCOME TAX OFFICER-34(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, VILLE PARLE EAST MUMBAI

10) of Rs.13,68,005/-.\n2. The Ld. ITO erred in charging interest u/s.234B, 234C of the Income Tax\nAct.\n3. The Ld. ITO erred in invoking penalty provisions u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act.\"\n18. The solitary issue arising in assessee's appeal pertains to the\ndisallowance of Rs.13,68,005 under section

ITO, MUMBAI vs. AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, VILE PARLE-WEST, MUMBAI

10) of Rs.13,68,005/-.\n2. The Ld. ITO erred in charging interest u/s.234B, 234C of the Income Tax\nAct.\n3. The Ld. ITO erred in invoking penalty provisions u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act.\"\n18. The solitary issue arising in assessee's appeal pertains to the\ndisallowance of Rs.13,68,005 under section

AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO25(2)(1), MUMBAI

10) of Rs.13,68,005/-.\n2. The Ld. ITO erred in charging interest u/s.234B, 234C of the Income Tax\nAct.\n3. The Ld. ITO erred in invoking penalty provisions u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act.\"\n18. The solitary issue arising in assessee's appeal pertains to the\ndisallowance of Rs.13,68,005 under section

AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS AND BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

10) of Rs.13,68,005/-.\n2. The Ld. ITO erred in charging interest u/s.234B, 234C of the Income Tax\nAct.\n3. The Ld. ITO erred in invoking penalty provisions u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act.\"\n\n18. The solitary issue arising in assessee's appeal pertains to the\ndisallowance of Rs.13,68,005 under section

AAKASH NIDHI BUILDERS DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

10) of Rs.13,68,005/-.\n2. The Ld. ITO erred in charging interest u/s.234B, 234C of the Income Tax\nAct.\n3. The Ld. ITO erred in invoking penalty provisions u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act.\"\n\n18. The solitary issue arising in assessee's appeal pertains to the\ndisallowance of Rs.13,68,005 under section

ASST CIT 27(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. MERIT MAGNUM CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

68 stipulates that any unexplained sum found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, then the same may be taxed as income of the assessee for that previous year. Thus, section 69 of I.T. Act can only be invoked if the transaction has been taken in the relevant previous year for which assessment is being

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act merely on the basis that details regarding the source of source of funds of such rights shareholders has not been provided. Further, this action of the learned AO also undermines the order of learned TPO and learned DRP wherein the right issue made to such shareholders has been examined and verified with no adverse

DCIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SYNTEL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit-3(2)(1), Syntel Private Limited, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Unit No. 112 Sdf Iv, Seepz Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri East Mumbai-400096. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 8305 D Appellant Respondent

68,16,833/- earned by the SEZ units of the earned by the SEZ units of the assessee company. It was contended by the assessee that said assessee company. It was contended by the assessee that said assessee company. It was contended by the assessee that said Syntel Pvt. Ltd. 3 interest income was earned from temporary parking