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

ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL FUNDS IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(E)-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is allowed

Section 2(15) of the Act can be understood from the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister while ITA. No. 5761 & 5762/Mum/2015 & 6888/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 introducing the Finance Bill 2008. The relevant extract to the Speech is as under:- '……."Charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and any other object

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

section 2(15) be invoked and exemption u/s 11 denied for the year under consideration i.e A.Y. 2017-18.\"\nThe Ld.DR prayed for dismissal of the appeal order and to uphold the addition made by the Ld.AO.\n7. Ld.AR filed the written submissions which are kept in the record (in short, 'APB'). The Ld.AR argued vehemently and first placed

RAMESH JAISINGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

15 and 16 April 2019. Thus, 36 Ramesh Jaisinghani the transfer was completed before the shares became listed. On that date, there was neither a market quotation nor a prescribed alternative method for computing FMV. The computation mechanism was therefore incapable of operation. 52. It is settled canon of fiscal jurisprudence that a charge of tax must be supported

M/S JR FIBER GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2 assailed the\nAO in making addition of Rs.21500,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on\naccount of share application and share premium. The AO in the\nassessment order noted that the assessee received share\napplication money of Rs.2150,000/- and Rs.1,93,50,000/- as\nshare premium making a total investment of Rs.2,15,00,000/-.\nSr. No.\nName

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OTTERS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 11(2) thereof. Since, the assessee is in existence for more than four decades in the past, its investments stood at Rs. 91,90,99,000/-. b) Without Interest Income, the Assessee has suffered a loss of Rs.5,21,41,944/- c) Further, its activities as per the object of the Trust have been bifurcated into sports activities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OTTERS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 11(2) thereof. Since, the assessee is in existence for more than four decades in the past, its investments stood at Rs. 91,90,99,000/-. b) Without Interest Income, the Assessee has suffered a loss of Rs.5,21,41,944/- c) Further, its activities as per the object of the Trust have been bifurcated into sports activities

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

15 definition However, in this case, we are required to definition However, in this case, we are required to ascertain the scope of Section 2(24)(vi) and for that ascertain the scope of Section 2(24)(vi) and for that purpose we have to read the sub section strictly. We read the sub section strictly

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

68 of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A), after taking into consideration the contentions and submissions of the assessee, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee by holding and observing as under: “I have considered the facts of the case, submissions made by the appellant, it is seen from the records that "During the year

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 68 of the Act in case of investee is totally against the settled principle of law and hence the order passed is bad in law. 2.11 It was also submitted by the ld. AR of the assesee that during the course of hearing before the AO, following documents were filed. For identity and genuineness  Financial Statements (attached

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

15) of section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling" (Emphasis supplied) 6. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee meets all the criteria as stated herein above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, treating the income

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

15) of section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling" (Emphasis supplied) 6. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee meets all the criteria as stated herein above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, treating the income

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

15) of section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling" (Emphasis supplied) 6. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee meets all the criteria as stated herein above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, treating the income

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

15) of section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling" (Emphasis supplied) 6. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee meets all the criteria as stated herein above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, treating the income

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

15) of section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling" (Emphasis supplied) 6. The ld. AR further argued that the assessee meets all the criteria as stated herein above by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, treating the income