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

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

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)(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

.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

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

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

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

SYNTENSIA NETWORK SECURITY INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 11(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Syntensia Network Security Vs. Ito 11(2)(4) India Pvt. Ltd., Churchgate, 506, Laxmi Mall Laxmi Industrial Mumbai - 400020 Estate New Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Aalcs1143G Appellant) Respondent) ..

10,09,000/= on account of unsecured loan. In this regard, we find that out of these loan of this amount, only Rs. 50,000/= was received in the present year and the balance is on account of opening balance. Hence, only this amount of Rs. 50,0007= can be considered for addition under Section 68 in this 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 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. Being aggrieved of the reduction of exemption income made by the Assessing Officer assessee preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

26. Ground No.1 is identical to Ground No. 1 of ITA No. 4883/Mum/2024 decided by us earlier in this order. Following our decision therein, this ground is kept open. 27. Ground No.2 relates to denial of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income and income from units. This ground is identical

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

26. Ground No.1 is identical to Ground No. 1 of ITA No. 4883/Mum/2024 decided by us earlier in this order. Following our decision therein, this ground is kept open. 27. Ground No.2 relates to denial of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income and income from units. This ground is identical

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

26. Ground No.1 is identical to Ground No. 1 of ITA No. 4883/Mum/2024 decided by us earlier in this order. Following our decision therein, this ground is kept open. 27. Ground No.2 relates to denial of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income and income from units. This ground is identical