NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEM), CIRCLE - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Transfer Pricing\nOfficer (\"TPO”), if the AO considered it necessary or expedient to do so. We\nfind that the provisions of section 92CA has laid down various procedures to\nbe followed by the TPO, such as seeking evidence from the assessee in support\n\nITA No. 4324/Mum/2025 (A.Υ. 2022-23) 18\nof computation made by the assessee

JINDAL DRUGS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE, 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

12A, 12th Floor, Bakhtawar, 229, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 ……………… Appellant [PAN: AAACJ1000A] Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, 3(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, Chuchgate, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400020 Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Sh. Vijay Mehta Sh. Anuj Kisnadwala For the Respondent/Department : Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande Date of conclusion of hearing : 15.11.2022 Date of pronouncement of order

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Act and is also certified as a research organisation under section 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The assessee had filed the original return of income claiming deduction under section 11. The case was re-opened based on the re-assessment done in assessee's case for AY 2010-11 wherein the assessee was denied the benefit

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

12A or section 12AA or section 12AB]; or (VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or by way of transaction

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

12A or section 12AA or section 12AB]; or (VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or by way of transaction

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

12A or section 12AA or section 12AB]; or (VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10; or by way of transaction

FAYZ E HUSAYNI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NAFC) DELHI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

12A of the Act and also it is\nregistered with Charity Commissioner, Mumbai. The assessee is\nengaged in the charitable activities. The main object of the trust is to\narrange and provide assistance and facilities to pilgrims visiting holy\nplaces such as Mecca and Madina etc., the other objects includes\nproviding housing, medical and educational facilities and general charity

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he\noriginally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he\nhas received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if,\nin the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed\nprice by more

SHREE RAJ FOUNDATION,MUM vs. DDIT (E)-I(2), , MUM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.18/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Shree Raj Foundation बिधम/ Ddit(E)-1(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Krishna [Now Ito (Exem), Ward- Vs. Kunj, Vl Mehta Rd, Jvpd 2(3), Mumbai] Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Income Tax Office, Mumbai-400056. Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts9658M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Paresh Shaparia Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar Das (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Foundation Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.12.2022 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of The Ao Re-Opening The Assessment Of Ay 2009-10 U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Without Following The Binding Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. Ito (Sc) (259 Itr 19) & Jurisdictional High Court Decision In The Case Of Fomento Resorts Hotels Ltd Vs. Acit (238 Itr 38) (Bom) & Asian Paints Ltd. Vs. Dcit (2008) (296 Itr 90) (Bom). 3. The Facts Relevant To The Legal Issue Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 Along With The Income & Expenditure Account, Balance-Sheet & Audit Report In Form No. 10B

12A of the Act and enjoys certificate u/s 80G of the Act. The original return of income filed on 30.03.2009 declaring total income as nil has undergone scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2011 wherein the AO has accepted the income as returned by the assessee at nil. Subsequently the assessment was re-opened

PADMASHREE DR. D.Y.PATIL UNIVERSITY ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT INCOME TAX CC-7(1) , MUMBAI

12A of the Act by DIT\n(Exemptions), Mumbai, vide Registration No.40651 dated 21.03.2007 w.e.f\n01-04-2006. It is also approved u/s 80G of the Act. The assessee, inter alia,\nruns a Medical college, Dental college, Physiotheraphy, Biotechnology and\nNursing colleges at Nerul, Navi Mumbai. Shri Vijay D Patil and Smt. Shivani\nPatil are the main trustees. Shri Vijay

KARAMSHI JETHABHAI SOMAIYA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year 2009- 10 on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dated 23.03.2011 wherein the assessing officer has accepted the income returned by the assessee. Subsequently, the assessing officer

SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3) , MUMBAI vs. M/S SAMSON MARITIME LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-53, MUMBAI vs. SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-53, MUMBAI vs. SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-53, MUMBAI vs. SAMSON MARITIME LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S SAMSON MARITIME LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

12A of the Act would be absurd. To say that the project is approved by the local authority is enough to prove that the assessee is eligible for claim u/s 801B of the Act, would also be incorrect. The claim of the assessee falls in this league as it says that if MSA has granted registration, the same