DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 10. the Act, including those conferring exemptions un the Act, including those conferring exemptions un Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the head ‘income on securities’ or ‘income from house property’ or head ‘income on securities

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

section 10. the Act, including those conferring exemptions un the Act, including those conferring exemptions un Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the Thus, the income which otherwise may be chargeable under the head ‘income on securities’ or ‘income from house property’ or head ‘income on securities

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 9 Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation

.DCIT., CIR.-4(2),MUMBAI vs. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI vs. M .M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

ITO - 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

I.T.O-4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S M.M.POONJIAJI SPICES LTD, MUMBAI

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

ITO - 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S. M.M. POONJIAJI SPICES LTD., MUMBAI

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

10 CCAC and further the goods were produced by an exported by the assessee, the deduction under section 80 HH C was also disallowed as an alternative claim. 19. The AO further found that there is a difference in account with respect to both the entities and therefore an addition of ₹ 2,381,763/– was also added to the total

DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI vs. ICICI BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act.” 11. Learned Authorised Representative reiterating the stand taken before the Departmental Authorities submitted, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act can be made in respect of interest expenditure as the entire investment giving rise to exempt interest income was made out of own funds and no borrowed fund was utilised. Referring