56 (Mumbai-Trib.) 4. Deccan Gymkhana (Oldesty Trust) v. CIT

262 ITR 459High Court2003#20284 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing 56 (Mumbai-Trib.) 4. Deccan Gymkhana (Oldesty Trust) v. CIT

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN,BHOPAL vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

ITA 289/IND/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ab)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…j Makandas & Parekh Trust, ITAT, Mumbai ITA No.2212/Mum/2010 2. CIT Vs Surat City Gymkhana(2008) 216 CTR 23(SC) 3. Income tax Officer, (E) 1 (1), Mumbai v. Bhansali Trust [2015] 63 taxmann.com 56 (Mumbai-Trib.) 4. Deccan Gymkhana (Oldesty Trust) v. CIT [2003] 262 ITR 459/131 Taxman 279 (Bom) 6. Per contra, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld. CIT(E). Digamber Jain ITA No.287 & 289/Ind/2020 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Through these two appeals assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(E) cancelling registration 12A of the Act and not grantin…

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN,CHULGIRI BHOPAL vs. CIT EXEMPTION, BHOPAL

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

ITA 287/IND/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ab)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,PUNE vs. CIT-1, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5Th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaatm2192D Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT and Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…was not in contravention of assessee’s primary object of promoting, developing and controlling the game of cricket in the specified territory of Maharashtra. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Deccan Gymkhana (Oldest Trust) Vs. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 459 (Bom) to the effect that it would be inappropriate to construe the aforesaid insertion as new objects of the assessee association, the Tribunal in this regard held that the aforesaid three insertions in the objects clause, only sought to provide enabling power to the Managing Committee of association to accomplish its objects and held that regist…

BHANSALI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3031/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Assessment Year : 2010-11 Bhansali Trust, The Ito (Exemp.)1(1), Ee-7010 Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400 050 Pan Aaatb1718N (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr K ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri N P Singh

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 35ASection 50A

…inal objects which are in the fields of educational purpose, medical purpose, relief of poverty and objects of general public utility not involving carrying on any activity for profit. In fact, Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Deccan Gymkhana vs. CIT, 262 ITR 459 (Bom) as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PHD Chamber of Commerce & Industry vs. DIT,130 ITR 186 (SC) has laid down that a distinction has to be made between the ‘purpose’ of a Trust and the ‘powers’ conferred upon the Trustees as being incidental to accomplish the purpose of the Trust. In our considered opinion, the a…