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

E Appellant Respondent MMTI’s Education & Research Trust MMTI’s Education & Research Trust ITA Nos. 5866/M/2015, 451/M/2019 & 2974/M/2017 Assessee by : Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv & Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv & Mr. AmodPrabhudesai, Mr. AmodPrabhudesai, Revenue by : Mr. Manish Ajudiya, Date of Hearing Date of Hearing : 14/06/2023 : Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement 23/06/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH

MMTI'S EDUCATION & 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

E Appellant Respondent MMTI’s Education & Research Trust MMTI’s Education & Research Trust ITA Nos. 5866/M/2015, 451/M/2019 & 2974/M/2017 Assessee by : Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv & Ms. Arati Vissanji, Adv & Mr. AmodPrabhudesai, Mr. AmodPrabhudesai, Revenue by : Mr. Manish Ajudiya, Date of Hearing Date of Hearing : 14/06/2023 : Date of pronouncement Date of pronouncement 23/06/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM PER OM PRAKASH

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)

e) of the Act. The assessee objected that he did not explain how he considered Mr. Shekar Swamy and his relatives as persons covered under sections 13(3)(a) to 13(3)(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

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)

e) of the Act. The assessee objected that he did not explain how he considered Mr. Shekar Swamy and his relatives as persons covered under sections 13(3)(a) to 13(3)(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

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Large Tax Payer Unit-Bangalore [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.02.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The issues contended

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

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

E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Large Tax Payer Unit-Bangalore [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.02.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The issues contended

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

e) any concern in which any of the persons referred to in clause (a), (b), (c). (cc) and (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

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

E), Mumbai vs. Jasubhai Foundation: 374 ITR 315 (Bombay) and also granted the benefit of carry forward of deficit of INR 4,15,08,853/- to the subsequent assessment years by following the decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS): 264 ITR 110 (Bombay). 6. Now, both

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

13 which is reproduced as under: We have considered the matter. We agree with the contention of the assessee that only prescribed items can be disallowed under section 43B of the Act. The items that have been disallowed by the AO being provision 35 | P a g e State Bank of India ITA Nos.3644&4563/Mum/2016 made towards employee benefits

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

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 allowance of deduction under section 36(1) (vii) of Rs.250

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

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 and confirmation

KHORAKIWALA HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 14(2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

13. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. relied heavily on the order of Ld. CIT(A) and AO by submitting that the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition of Rs.90.00 crores as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act after appreciating the fact that the source of money is flowing from the company in which

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

E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4282, 4283, /Mum/2024 (Assessment Years:2014-15, 2013-14,) Tata Education Trust, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody (Exemptions), Vs. Street, Fort, Circle-2(1), Mumbai-400001 Mumbai (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A ITA No.4156, 4496, 4727 & 4835/Mum/2024

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

E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4282, 4283, /Mum/2024 (Assessment Years:2014-15, 2013-14,) Tata Education Trust, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody (Exemptions), Vs. Street, Fort, Circle-2(1), Mumbai-400001 Mumbai (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A ITA No.4156, 4496, 4727 & 4835/Mum/2024

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

E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4282, 4283, /Mum/2024 (Assessment Years:2014-15, 2013-14,) Tata Education Trust, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody (Exemptions), Vs. Street, Fort, Circle-2(1), Mumbai-400001 Mumbai (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A ITA No.4156, 4496, 4727 & 4835/Mum/2024

ITO 3(3)2, MUMBAI vs. SHAMROCK PHARMACHEMI P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिाम/ Ito 3(3)2, M/S. Shamrock R.No. 602, Pharmachemi Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 83E,Hansraj Pragi Bldg., V. M.K Road, Opp. Dr. E Moses Road, Mumbai 400020 Worli, Mumbai-400018 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs6290H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri. Ashim Kumar Modi (Cit- Dr), Shri V. Justin & Ms. Chaitna Ajaria Shri. Bharat L. Gandhi Assessee By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 1774/Mum/2013, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 29.10.2012, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-7/Ito-3(3)(2)/It-166/11-12, For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2011 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay 2009-10. I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

Section 195 of the 1961 Act. The assessee has made payments towards commission to overseas agents . The assessee submitted details of said payments for last three years as under:- Financial Year Overseas Overseas %age of Overseas Commission Transaction Value Commission Value (in Rs . ) (in Rs . ) 2008-09 12,23,22,188.00 1,68,19,755.00 13. 75% I.T.A. No.1774/Mum/2013

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

BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

13 precedents inasmuch as reasoning adopted therein does not hold good any longer in the light of the decision in the case of Technimont (supra), admirable grace. It is not clear to us whether this approach is to preempt a detailed discussion on merits of the matter, or whether this approach is indeed bonafide stand of the assessee. That does

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2018-

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailita No.1452/Mum/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2018-19

13 precedents inasmuch as reasoning adopted therein does not hold good any longer in the light of the decision in the case of Technimont (supra), admirable grace. It is not clear to us whether this approach is to preempt a detailed discussion on merits of the matter, or whether this approach is indeed bonafide stand of the assessee. That does