DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse

259 ITR 280Supreme Court of India2003#1331 most cited

What is DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse authority for?

Violation of investment mandates under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a charitable trust results in the complete denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse · Section 13(1)(d) violation · Section 11 exemption denial · charitable trust investments · denial of tax exemption · Supreme Court ruling · investment modes for trusts · maximum marginal rate · Section 164(2) · trust income exemption

Also reported as

179 CTR 225126 Taxmann 365

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

section 13(l)(d)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)section 13(2)section 164section 10(35)section 11(5)section 13(1)cancellation of registrationmaximum marginal ratesection 10(34)section 11(1)(a)

Judgments citing DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai vs. All India Gem and Jewellery Domestic Council, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4652/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina
Section 11Section 2(15)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. CIT (Exemption)-1(1), All India Gem And Jewellery 6th floor, MTNL Building Domestic Council, Vs. Cumballa Hill, Dr. GD 1501 & 1502, Panchratna CHS Deshmukh Marg (Pedder Ltd. P Marg, Opera House, Road), Charni Road (East), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400 004. PAN NO. AAFCA 3001 P Appellant Respondent : Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR : 01/10/2025 Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 24/12/20…

Federation of European Business in India, Delhi vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 2446/DEL/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrafederation Of European Commissioner Of Income Business In India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari Lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 Pan: Aafcf5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi [‘Cit(E)’].

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 2(15)Section 8

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Federation of European Commissioner of Income Business in India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 PAN: AAFCF5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This…

M/S. Vijayanagar Educational Trust, Bengaluru vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

…ransaction was for the personal benefit of the trustee, hence it violates the provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The ld. The ld. CIT(E) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax v. Bharat Diamond Bourse, 259 ITR 280. ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 16 of 37 iv. Regarding late filing of ROI and audit report in form no 10B assessee submitted that it cannot be the reason for cancellation of registration. It may be the case for allowing benefit of section 11 and 2 of the act for the particular assessment years. The ld. CIT(E) held that assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3442/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2483 to 2486 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Years:2008-09, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tata Social Welfare Trust, 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Tax, 26(1), Vs. Mumbai Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9834B Tata Social Welfare Trust, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) :…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bkc Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 3441/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2483 to 2486 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Years:2008-09, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tata Social Welfare Trust, 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Tax, 26(1), Vs. Mumbai Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9834B Tata Social Welfare Trust, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) :…

DCIT 26(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2483 to 2486 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Years:2008-09, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tata Social Welfare Trust, 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Tax, 26(1), Vs. Mumbai Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9834B Tata Social Welfare Trust, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) :…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2484/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2483 to 2486 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Years:2008-09, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tata Social Welfare Trust, 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Tax, 26(1), Vs. Mumbai Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9834B Tata Social Welfare Trust, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) :…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 26(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc vs. Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2483/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2483 to 2486 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Years:2008-09, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tata Social Welfare Trust, 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Tax, 26(1), Vs. Mumbai Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9834B Tata Social Welfare Trust, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) :…

Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)Section 3Section 7

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2483 to 2486 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Years:2008-09, 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tata Social Welfare Trust, 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Tax, 26(1), Vs. Mumbai Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9834B Tata Social Welfare Trust, Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) :…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4852/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 31. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of the First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering the submissions of learned DR, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudicati…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissiioner of Income Tax Circle 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4727/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 31. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of the First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4496/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 31. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of the First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 26(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4419/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering the submissions of learned DR, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudicat…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exeption) -Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4283/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering the submissions of learned DR, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudicati…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4282/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 31. We have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. After carefully going through the order of the First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the grounds raised by the Department are thoroughly misconceived as no relief with…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4156/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar & Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" 21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering the submissions of learned DR, we are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause. Hence we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudicati…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4413/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld? 2.1 Grounds taken by the assessee in ITA No. 4055/Mum/2024 are reproduced as under: " 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["ld. CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and rejecting the AY 2009-1…

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4055/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld? 2.1 Grounds taken by the assessee in ITA No. 4055/Mum/2024 are reproduced as under: " 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["ld. CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and rejecting the AY 2009-1…

Assitant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan Bandra Mumbai vs. Tata Education Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4030/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 164(2)

…ring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld? 2.1 Grounds taken by the assessee in ITA No. 4055/Mum/2024 are reproduced as under: " 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["ld. CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the re-opening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and rejecting the AY 2009-1…