MMTIS EDUCTION & RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) I(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

c) in relation to payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without considering evidences and s considering evidences and submissions which proves that ubmissions which proves that these payments made were for the purpose of attainment of these payments made were

MMTIS EDUCATION AND RESEARCH TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed partly for allowed partly for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, The Dy. Director Of Income- New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Tax(Exemption)-I(1), Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, Parel, Lalbaug, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), New Excel House, 2Nd Floor, 41-B, Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Azad Nagar Road No. 2, Off. Veera Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Desai Road, Behind Icici Bank, 12. Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Mmti’S Education & Research Trust, Ito(E)-2(1), Victor House, 2Nd Floor, End Of Veera Income-Tax Office, Piramal Vs. Desai Road, Next To Chitralekha Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- House, Andheri (W), 12. Mumbai-400053. Pan No. Aabtm 2192 E Appellant Respondent

c) in relation to payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without payments made to "Specified Persons" u/s. 13(3) without considering evidences and s considering evidences and submissions which proves that ubmissions which proves that these payments made were for the purpose of attainment of these payments made were

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)

68,07,442 was covered by section 13(2)(a). In para 6.16 at page 21, he held that the payments to HRG were excessive and, therefore, section 13(3)(c) was attracted. 13. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee reiterated its submissions made before the Assessing Officer, the assessee further pointed out that HRG was not dependent

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)

68,07,442 was covered by section 13(2)(a). In para 6.16 at page 21, he held that the payments to HRG were excessive and, therefore, section 13(3)(c) was attracted. 13. Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee reiterated its submissions made before the Assessing Officer, the assessee further pointed out that HRG was not dependent

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

c). The 13 Oberoi Foundation expenditure incurred on those interested persons would be a compensation for such services. A benefit would be said to have been given to the persons of prohibited category, if they in return do nothing but only enjoy the fruits of the trust/society and take away the funds/income of the society for their personal benefit

ANTHAYYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION 1-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

68,70,198.00 Year Total Expenditure claimed during the year Admin. Expenses & 1 62,14,269.00 Expenditure relating to property Expenses on the object of 2 1,78,97,163.00 the Trust Excess Expenditure of 2 1,78,82,696.00 current year carried forward Investment in Capital 3 7,87,551.00 Assets Anthayya Education Foundation Trust During the assessment proceedings

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

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

R. KUNDAN & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 14(3)(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

c) is not applicable to the appellant. Held that nothing was brought on record to indicate that the appellant is permanently domiciled in UK despite documentary evidence having been filed. Held that the appellant is a resident and ordinarily resident in India liable to pay tax on global income. B. Additions u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act,1961 1

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

68): "It may be convenient at this point to deal with an argument that, even if as a general rule a watch committee must hear a constable in its own defence before dismissing him this case was so clear that nothing that the appellant could have said could have made any difference. It is at least very doubtful whether that

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

68): "It may be convenient at this point to deal with an argument that, even if as a general rule a watch committee must hear a constable in its own defence before dismissing him this case was so clear that nothing that the appellant could have said could have made any difference. It is at least very doubtful whether that

CHANDRU K MIRCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Chandru K. Mirchandani Income Tax Officer-14(3)(3) C/O. Sorabi Hormusji & Co. 6Th Floor, Earnest House Vs. 22, Mangaldas Road Nariman Point Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aftpm3209F Appellant Respondent

68,761/- (ii) Difference on Income from House Property of Hari Niwas property `6,28,866/- (iii) Expenses disallowed – claimed against interest income `3,04,293/- (iv) Society and maintenance charges disallowed 2.2 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 15.07.2014 deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect

ANTHAYYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

68,70,198.00\nTotal Expenditure\nclaimed during the year\nAdmin. Expenses &\n1\n62,14,269.00\nExpenditure relating to\nproperty\nExpenses on the object of\n2\n1,78,97,163.00\nthe Trust\nExcess Expenditure of\n2\n1,78,82,696.00\ncurrent year carried\nforward\nInvestment in Capital\n3\n7,87,551.00\nAssets\nDuring the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO had allowed

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

68,976/-. Subsequently, the A.O while giving effect to the order of the CIT(A) revised the total assessed loss of the assessee at Rs.6,60,10,398/- vide his order dated 22.11.2010. 3. That after the culmination of the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee the A.O was in receipt of information from the DIT(Inv.), Kolkata

ELENJICKAMALIL V. THOMAS,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआमकय अऩीर सं/.I.T.A. No.2647/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : (2009-10) बिाम / Elenjickamalil V. Thomas Dcit 22(3) 212, Vardhaman Chambers, Mumbai Sector-17, Vashi, V. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं/.Pan: Aacpe7339L (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

13 ITA No.2647/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 Elenjickamalil V. Thomas v. DCIT-22(3), Mumbai assessee as contended, on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities which cannot be simply brushed aside or demolished by the Revenue based on conjectures and surmises on suspicion , except through cogent incriminating material which revenue has failed to bring on record in the instant case