SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,39,506/- for non-filing of Form No. 10 with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax within stipulated time in the absence of any specific time limit under the section 11(2) as it existed at the relevant time. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

68,39,506/- for non-filing of Form No. 10 with Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax within stipulated time in the absence of any specific time limit under the section 11(2) as it existed at the relevant time. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

68,81,76,553 Total of the above (A) 385,26,81,557 Provision for bad & doubtful debts in books (B) 455,78,00,000 Deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) - lower of A & B 385,26,81,557 9. The AO recomputed the deduction under section 36(1)(viia) on the ground that – (i) that the assessee while computing

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

d) has a substantial interest." 18. Let us examine whether case of the revenue falls under clause (2) under section 13(1)(c) or under section 13(2). It is not disputed that the person referred to in sub-section (3) is the founder member of the trust. The condition mentioned under section 13(1

INNO vs. OURCE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAIVS.DCIT, 14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Innovsource Services Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 14(1)(1), 501, Jolly Board Tower 1, I-Think Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Techno Campus Kanjurmarg-East, Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400042. Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaeci 0979 D Appellant Respondent

d therefore, there is no question of taking it to FY 2020 there is no question of taking it to FY 2020-21 as done by 21 as done by assessee. Since income declared is of Rs. 11,12,68,378/ Since income declared is of Rs. 11,12,68,378/- by the assessee, disallowance of Rs.11,12,68

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

d) Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs. 159,22,24,604. (e) Excess grant of deduction under section 36(1) (viia) Rs.12,23,01,710. (f) Deduction under section 36(1) (viii) Rs. 138, 52, 06,494. (g) Allowance of Long-term Capital loss to the extent of Rs.502,62,44,256. (h) Excess

R.D.TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSTT.CIT 17(3)), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

11(5) and the applicability of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, he would restrict submissions in his appeal to the applicability and/or interpretation of provisions of Section 13(2)(h) read with Section 13(3) of the Act. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the finding returned by the Assessing Officer

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

11 (1) for, the current year amounting to ₹.25,50,000 as application towards objects of the institution.” 16. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that HRG is not a person covered under section 13(3)(e) as Mr. Shekhar Swamy is not a person covered in clauses (a) to (d) of section 13(3). Learned Counsel

MEDIA RESEARCH USERS COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (E) RG 1, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– 1(1) 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Media Research Users Council V. Addl. Dit(E)– Range 1 128, Tv Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400012 Pan: Aaatm5433F (Appellant) (Respondent)

11 (1) for, the current year amounting to ₹.25,50,000 as application towards objects of the institution.” 16. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that HRG is not a person covered under section 13(3)(e) as Mr. Shekhar Swamy is not a person covered in clauses (a) to (d) of section 13(3). Learned Counsel

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

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

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

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

D E R The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17/02/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the addition of Rs.25 lakh made u/s 68 and disallowance of interest paid on the said loan amounting to Rs.1,00,823/- made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), without appreciating the evidences

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68,000/- received on settling of the trust “(ii) Details of investment held as on 31.03.2015 and explain as to whether the investments are as per provisions of section 11(5) of the I.T. Act. The trust is registered with the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under Registration No. TR/5060

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68,000/- received on settling of the trust “(ii) Details of investment held as on 31.03.2015 and explain as to whether the investments are as per provisions of section 11(5) of the I.T. Act. The trust is registered with the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under Registration No. TR/5060

INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT)-3(2)(1), KAUTILYA BHAWAN vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

68 of the Act in the order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating the facts that there is profit of Rs.2,57,97,824/- from transaction in derivatives at BSE and the same is already offered to tax by the Assessee. 3. It is brought to the notice of the Bench that Revenue has inadvertently filed

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as indicated above

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri G Manjunatha, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3644/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) State Bank Of India The Dy. Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre Income Tax, Circle -2(2)(1) बनाम/ Madam Cama Road Mumbai Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacs8577K

d. In the mercantile system the liability shall be an accrued liability and not a provisional liability to be allowed. Provisions of section 36 (1) (iv) and 36 1(v) allow provisional liabilities but they are subject to certain including applicability of section 438 of the I.T. Act. However, similar provisional liabilities cannot be allowed u/s 37(1