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

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

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

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) ..

5(2) cannot be taxed under section 68 or 69 - Held, yes - Whether, consequently, section 68 or 69 would be applicable in case of a non-resident only with reference to those amounts whose origin of source can be located in India - Held, yes - 10

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 respect to the eligible profit of Nasik unit. This issue was first decided by this order for assessment year 2001 – 02 wherein we have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A deleting

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 respect to the eligible profit of Nasik unit. This issue was first decided by this order for assessment year 2001 – 02 wherein we have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A deleting

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 respect to the eligible profit of Nasik unit. This issue was first decided by this order for assessment year 2001 – 02 wherein we have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A deleting

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 respect to the eligible profit of Nasik unit. This issue was first decided by this order for assessment year 2001 – 02 wherein we have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A deleting

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 respect to the eligible profit of Nasik unit. This issue was first decided by this order for assessment year 2001 – 02 wherein we have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A deleting

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 respect to the eligible profit of Nasik unit. This issue was first decided by this order for assessment year 2001 – 02 wherein we have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A deleting

.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 respect to the eligible profit of Nasik unit. This issue was first decided by this order for assessment year 2001 – 02 wherein we have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A deleting

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

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 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

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

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