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

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

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

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)

d). Assessing Officer of the view that Mr. Shekar Swamy would be covered under section 13(3) since he is a director of HRG by removing the corporate veil (see page 8, last para; page 9, 6th para and page 13, 4th para after the table). 8. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer referred to sections 13

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)

d). Assessing Officer of the view that Mr. Shekar Swamy would be covered under section 13(3) since he is a director of HRG by removing the corporate veil (see page 8, last para; page 9, 6th para and page 13, 4th para after the table). 8. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer referred to sections 13

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

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

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

13(1)(d) unless it is covered by exception as discussed supra in this order. We find that during the course of assessment proceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in pursuance of the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the ld. A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 CIT(E) on 17.03.2021, the assessing officer

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

13(1)(d) unless it is covered by exception as discussed supra in this order. We find that during the course of assessment proceedings initiated u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in pursuance of the order u/s 263 of the Act passed by the ld. A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 CIT(E) on 17.03.2021, the assessing officer

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand**

d) of the I. T. Act. In form 10B submitted during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 13-14, the assessee has claimed that there are no investments held at any time during the previous year in concerns in which persons referred to in section 13(3) have a substantial interest. However, on perusal of records of A.Y.2014-15

SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Bleand**

d) of the I. T. Act. In form 10B submitted during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 13-14, the assessee has claimed that there are no investments held at any time during the previous year in concerns in which persons referred to in section 13(3) have a substantial interest. However, on perusal of records of A.Y.2014-15

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

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

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

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

13. One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2). Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer to proceed under

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

ITO(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHAPOORJI PALLONJI MISTRY, MUMBAI

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

EDWISE CONSULTANTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5376/Mum/2011 & I.T.A. No.4121/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2010-11) बनाम/ Edwise Consultants Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 4(3), Room No.649, Jer Mahal, Vs. 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Opp. Metro Cinema, M K Road, Dhobi Talav, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

68,96,531 for the year ended 31 March 2008 from Rs.10,38,42,783 for the year ended 31 March 2007 and the net profit to Rs. 6,33,71,196 for the year ended 31 March 2008 which is approximately 35% more than the net profit of Rs.4,69,70,264 earned for the year ended 31 March