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

Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of Jamshetji Tata Trust (Supra), the coordinate bench

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

Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of Jamshetji Tata Trust (Supra), the coordinate bench

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

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPLANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.(O.S.D.) -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), 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, ()

10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognized stock exchange after payment

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, ()

10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions under sections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators' - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's claim, noting that shares were purchased via Account Payee Cheques, held in a Demat Account for over 12 months, and sold through a recognized stock exchange after payment

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

34 to 95 of PB and (vi) Bank\nstatement highlighting the transaction which are found placed at page\nno. 96 to 109 of PB. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee by\nproducing the aforesaid relevant documents has discharged the burden\nto prove the nature and source of the credit entry of Rs.2.15 cr as\nshare capital/premium. Further, according

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

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

34. With respect to the conversion of the firm into a company and use of plant and machinery, it is a fact that both the units of the assessee became hundred percent export-oriented units in 2001 – 01. The first year of claim of deduction under section 10 B was assessment year 2001 – 02. With respect

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

34. With respect to the conversion of the firm into a company and use of plant and machinery, it is a fact that both the units of the assessee became hundred percent export-oriented units in 2001 – 01. The first year of claim of deduction under section 10 B was assessment year 2001 – 02. With respect

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

34. With respect to the conversion of the firm into a company and use of plant and machinery, it is a fact that both the units of the assessee became hundred percent export-oriented units in 2001 – 01. The first year of claim of deduction under section 10 B was assessment year 2001 – 02. With respect

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

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

34. With respect to the conversion of the firm into a company and use of plant and machinery, it is a fact that both the units of the assessee became hundred percent export-oriented units in 2001 – 01. The first year of claim of deduction under section 10 B was assessment year 2001 – 02. With respect

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

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

34. With respect to the conversion of the firm into a company and use of plant and machinery, it is a fact that both the units of the assessee became hundred percent export-oriented units in 2001 – 01. The first year of claim of deduction under section 10 B was assessment year 2001 – 02. With respect

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

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

34. With respect to the conversion of the firm into a company and use of plant and machinery, it is a fact that both the units of the assessee became hundred percent export-oriented units in 2001 – 01. The first year of claim of deduction under section 10 B was assessment year 2001 – 02. With respect

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

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

34. With respect to the conversion of the firm into a company and use of plant and machinery, it is a fact that both the units of the assessee became hundred percent export-oriented units in 2001 – 01. The first year of claim of deduction under section 10 B was assessment year 2001 – 02. With respect

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