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

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

26,539,393/– on account of suppression of profits. We find that when the assessee has shown higher stock in books of accounts and shown lesser stock to the bank, we do not find any reason to make any addition in the hence of the assessee. Thus, the order of the learned CIT – A is reversed to the extent

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

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

26,539,393/– on account of suppression of profits. We find that when the assessee has shown higher stock in books of accounts and shown lesser stock to the bank, we do not find any reason to make any addition in the hence of the assessee. Thus, the order of the learned CIT – A is reversed to the extent

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

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

26,539,393/– on account of suppression of profits. We find that when the assessee has shown higher stock in books of accounts and shown lesser stock to the bank, we do not find any reason to make any addition in the hence of the assessee. Thus, the order of the learned CIT – A is reversed to the extent

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

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

26,539,393/– on account of suppression of profits. We find that when the assessee has shown higher stock in books of accounts and shown lesser stock to the bank, we do not find any reason to make any addition in the hence of the assessee. Thus, the order of the learned CIT – A is reversed to the extent

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

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

26,539,393/– on account of suppression of profits. We find that when the assessee has shown higher stock in books of accounts and shown lesser stock to the bank, we do not find any reason to make any addition in the hence of the assessee. Thus, the order of the learned CIT – A is reversed to the extent

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

26,539,393/– on account of suppression of profits. We find that when the assessee has shown higher stock in books of accounts and shown lesser stock to the bank, we do not find any reason to make any addition in the hence of the assessee. Thus, the order of the learned CIT – A is reversed to the extent

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

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

26,539,393/– on account of suppression of profits. We find that when the assessee has shown higher stock in books of accounts and shown lesser stock to the bank, we do not find any reason to make any addition in the hence of the assessee. Thus, the order of the learned CIT – A is reversed to the extent

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

26] The above judgment has been further accorded in the case of CIT vs Ackruti City Ltd. [2013] 31 taxman.com 275 (Bombay) where the question before the Hon'ble Court was as under: (b). Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that deduction under Section

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)

26 Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai. Section 10(38), read with sections 68 and 69, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 2. The jurisdictional Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Syntensia Network Security India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.2927/Mum/2017) on analyzing the first proviso to section 68 of the IT Act has held that first proviso to section 68 is not applicable in case the remitter

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

26,10,000 The JAO has made comments with respect to the source of source. It is already held that the source of source cannot be inquired. Also, the JAO has not brought on record any contrary evidence and therefore, no addition should be made in respect of loan of this party. Chandru Sanwaldas 10

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

26,10,000 The JAO has made comments with respect to the source of source. It is already held that the source of source cannot be inquired. Also, the JAO has not brought on record any contrary evidence and therefore, no addition should be made in respect of loan of this party. Chandru Sanwaldas 10

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

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference

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

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year

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

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference

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

10,14,122 is bad in law and ought to be deleted.\n7. Disallowance under section 40A(3) of Rs 1,39,81,267\n7.1. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing\nOfficer under section 40A(3) aggregating Rs 1,39,81,267 being the rent\nexpenses incurred during the year under reference