MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

2. If Ground No. II is allowed, and it is held that receipts received or earned by the Appellant is not assessable as Appellant own income as Appellant is agent of the State Government, the question of allowing related expenses also does not arise; This ground will not, therefore survive for adjudication. 3. If Ground No I & II both

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while the\nappeal by the Revenue is dismissed

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision for standard

M/S RENUKAMATA MULTI STATE CO-OP. URBAN CREDITN SOC. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. CIT, CC-4(4), MUMBAI

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision

SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(4), MUMBAI

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision for standard

JCIT (OSD), CC-4(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHRI RENUKAMATA MULTI-STATE COOPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AHAMEDNAGAR

68 of the Act and also the commission income estimated by\nlearned CIT(A) are directed to be deleted. As a result, grounds no.3-4 raised in\nassessee's appeal are allowed, while grounds no.1-2 raised in Revenue's\nappeal are dismissed.\n20. The issue arising in ground no.5, raised in assessee's appeal, pertains to\ndisallowance of provision for standard

RAHEJA LEGENCY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIR-22(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

2,50,33,21,047 should be considered as received during the year so as to bring them under the purview of Section 68 is found to be not acceptable. Having factually concluded that the fresh loans taken by the appellant during the year under consideration were Rs.86,10,21,717, it is imperative to adjudicate the issue

ACIT CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs. RAHEJA LEGACY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

2,50,33,21,047 should be considered as received during the year so as to bring them under the purview of Section 68 is found to be not acceptable. Having factually concluded that the fresh loans taken by the appellant during the year under consideration were Rs.86,10,21,717, it is imperative to adjudicate the issue

IDHASOFT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Dcit-15(2)(1), 3, Narayan Building, Room No.357, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400014 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabci6090G Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-15(2)(1), M/S Idhasoft Ltd. Room No.357, 3Rd Floor 3, Narayan Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 23 L. N. Road, Dadar East, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabci6090G

68 of the Act, deleted by the Ld. First Appellate Authority has been challenged. 2. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee (ITA No.5139/Mum/2016), wherein, the ground raised is as under:- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in holding that the reopening

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68 Vol I Factual Paper Book (“FPB”). ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim Industries Ltd. 2018-19 2. The Hon‟ble National Company Law Tribunal („NCLT‟), Ahmedabad Bench, vide its order dated 1st June 2017 approved the said composite scheme of arrangement (Pg. No. 7 – 24 Vol I FPB). As per the said scheme, the merger was effective from 1st July

DY CIT CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

68 Vol I Factual Paper Book (“FPB”). ITA Nos. 1935/MUM/2020 & 41/MUM/2021 Grasim Industries Ltd. 2018-19 2. The Hon‟ble National Company Law Tribunal („NCLT‟), Ahmedabad Bench, vide its order dated 1st June 2017 approved the said composite scheme of arrangement (Pg. No. 7 – 24 Vol I FPB). As per the said scheme, the merger was effective from 1st July

ASST CIT 6 (2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S CHIRIPAL POLY FILMS LTD., MUMBAI

150/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act, and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of INR 29,57,924/- made by the Assessing Officer in respect of depreciation on intangible assets. Further, the CIT(A) also concluded that alternate addition of INR 23,71,34,031/- under Section 56(2

HELLIOS EXPORTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(2), MUMBAI

150 taxmann.com\n146 (Orissa) where the question of law for consideration was:-\n“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the\nITAT was correct in holding that the approving authority has\nnot applied his mind for giving approval under section\n153D?\"\n029. The honourable High Court in paragraph number 11 has analyzed\nthe provisions of section

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

150 other birds, etc. The Courts, the Police and the public at large leave the animals and birds who have met with some accident, or who have been ill treated by their owners or who have been rescued from the slaughter houses into the Trust panjrapole. The Trust provides such animals and birds with medical care, food and shelter." This

DY. COMMISSIONER OF 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

150 other birds, etc. The Courts, the Police and the public at large leave the animals and birds who have met with some accident, or who have been ill treated by their owners or who have been rescued from the slaughter houses into the Trust panjrapole. The Trust provides such animals and birds with medical care, food and shelter." This