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

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

3 Kapindra Multitrade Pvt. Ltd 30,000 4 Dura Allowy Cutters Pvt. Ltd. 35,000 5 Radhe Krishna Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 10,000 6 Ambuj Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 45,000 7 Raw Gold Securities Pvt. Ltd. 30,000 Total 2,15,000 The assessee was asked to produce the above parties for verification. The AO noted that the assessee filed

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

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

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

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

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

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

.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

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

LATE SHRI MOHAN RAJ CHHAJED (THROUGH LEGAL JEOR SHANTILAL CHHAJED),MUMBAI vs. ITO,WARD-2, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Late Shri Mohan Raj Chhajed Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, (Through Legal Heir Shantilal Pali Rajasthan-306-401. Chhajed), Vs. 601, Shilpa Apartments, C.D. Barfiwala Marg, Juhu Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. Pan No. Aaipc 6614 N Appellant Respondent

section 145(3) of the Act, rejected books of accounts of the , rejected books of accounts of the assessee and applied gross assessee and applied gross profit at the rate of 22.19% ( profit at the rate of 22.19% (the rate which was declared in the immediately preceding asse was declared in the immediately preceding asse was declared

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act of INR 7,959,683,862 be deleted. Ground No. 3 - Re-raising of demand which was raised in the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 2 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

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

68,072 and claimed the entire profit as a deduction\nunder section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed its return\nof income, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, on the basis of the\nassessment conducted for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein similar\ndeduction claimed under section 80-IB(10

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

68,072 and claimed the entire profit as a deduction\nunder section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed its return\nof income, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, on the basis of the\nassessment conducted for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein similar\ndeduction claimed under section 80-IB(10

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

68,072 and claimed the entire profit as a deduction\nunder section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed its return\nof income, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, on the basis of the\nassessment conducted for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein similar\ndeduction claimed under section 80-IB(10

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

68,072 and claimed the entire profit as a deduction\nunder section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed its return\nof income, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, on the basis of the\nassessment conducted for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein similar\ndeduction claimed under section 80-IB(10

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

68,072 and claimed the entire profit as a deduction\nunder section 80-IB(10) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee filed its return\nof income, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. Subsequently, on the basis of the\nassessment conducted for the assessment year 2007-08, wherein similar\ndeduction claimed under section 80-IB(10

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

10,53,225/- i.e part of the \nexpenses incurred by the Investment Department towards \nearning of the exempt income. However, the A.O rejected \nthe aforesaid claim of the assessee and worked out the \ndisallowance u/s 14A r.w Rule 8D at Rs.13,05,70,512/-. On \nappeal, the CIT(A) relying on the orders passed by the \nTribunal and also that

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

section 68 by an amount of Rs. 3,25,27,267/-, proposed by the JAO in his remand report, as the AO had already considered these amounts as genuine in nature while passing the assessment order originally, ignoring that during the remand report proceeding on enquiry made by the AO these loan have been found non- genuine