Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal restores assessment order, rejects revision under Income Tax Act. Assessee eligible for exemption.</h1> <h3>Milestone Real Estate Fund Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–25 (3), Mumbai</h3> Milestone Real Estate Fund Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle–25 (3), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Eligibility of the assessee for exemption under section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.3. Alleged violation of SEBI regulations by the assessee.4. Impact of the amendments to section 10(23FB) by Finance Act, 2012 and Finance Act, 2013.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The assessee challenged the validity of the order passed under section 263, arguing that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a thorough enquiry and applied his mind to the facts and relevant statutory provisions before allowing the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(23FB). The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's exercise of revisional power was unwarranted as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the revisional authority cannot substitute its view over the AO's view if the latter's view is a possible one.2. Eligibility of the Assessee for Exemption Under Section 10(23FB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The Tribunal examined the legislative history and amendments to section 10(23FB). It noted that the assessee, a SEBI-registered Venture Capital Fund (VCF), had made investments in Venture Capital Undertakings (VCUs) primarily engaged in the real estate sector. The Tribunal observed that real estate was removed from the negative list under the SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996, w.e.f. 5th April 2004. Therefore, the assessee's investments in VCUs in the real estate sector were eligible for exemption under section 10(23FB). The Tribunal rejected the PCIT's view that the assessee was ineligible for exemption because the VCUs were not engaged in providing services, production, or manufacturing of articles or things.3. Alleged Violation of SEBI Regulations by the Assessee:The PCIT alleged that the assessee violated SEBI regulations by investing in mutual funds, which purportedly disqualified it from being considered a VCF. The Tribunal found no specific provision in the SEBI (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996, prohibiting such investments. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to a SEBI clarification that allowed VCFs to invest uninvested portions of their funds in liquid mutual funds or bank deposits. The Tribunal emphasized that any alleged violation of SEBI regulations should be addressed by SEBI, not the Income Tax authorities. Since SEBI had not taken any adverse action against the assessee, the Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's allegations were baseless.4. Impact of the Amendments to Section 10(23FB) by Finance Act, 2012 and Finance Act, 2013:The Tribunal analyzed the amendments to section 10(23FB) brought by Finance Act, 2012, and Finance Act, 2013. It noted that the amendments were effective from assessment year 2013-14, the same year for which the assessee claimed the exemption. The Tribunal observed that the amendments aimed to remove sectoral restrictions on VCUs and align the definition with SEBI regulations. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(23FB) was valid as per the amended provisions applicable for the assessment year 2013-14.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and restored the assessment order passed by the AO. The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 10(23FB) and that the AO had correctly applied the law to the facts of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT's exercise of revisional power was unjustified as the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Tribunal also rejected the PCIT's allegations of SEBI regulation violations, noting that SEBI had not taken any adverse action against the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found