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

Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of Jamshetji Tata Trust (Supra), the coordinate bench

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

Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of dispute in case of Jamshetji Tata Trust (Supra), the coordinate bench

ADITYA BIRLA PRIVATE EQUITY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI (INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(1)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68,97,076\n8,23,05,575\n37,84,72,668\n47,76,75,319\nExempt u/s\n10(35)\n10(34)\n10(23FB)\n4. The case of the assessee was selected under complete scrutiny\nthrough CASS and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer\nunder section 143(3) on 30.12.2018 after due enquiry and accepting\nthe returned income

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI vs. SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPLANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T.(O.S.D.) -1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

34) on the dividend income. This ground is identical to grounds 3.1 to 3.3 of Revenue’s appeal for AY. 2010-11. Thus following our order, this ground is decided in favour of the assessee. Ground 2 is allowed. 60. As a result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 61. Now we shall take up appeal filed by the assessee