National Engg. Co-ordination Committee v. Asst. CIT

43 ITD 612Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1992#8096 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(h)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234CSection 12A

Issues it is cited on

section 13(2)accumulation of incomesection 13(3)section 13(1)(c)section 13(1)application of incomesection 234section 12asection 143(1)section 11section 142(1)previous year

Judgments citing National Engg. Co-ordination Committee v. Asst. CIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3318/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue's appeals are\ndismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
Section 11Section 13(2)(a)Section 234B

…such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:\n•\nCIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)\n•\nCIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)\n•\nNational Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune)\n10.\nThe learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon\nthe observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority.\n11.\nWe have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on\nrecord. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading\nof the respe…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3316/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3313/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue's appeals are\ndismissed

ITA 3312/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:\n• CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)\n• CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)\n• National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune)\n10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon\nthe observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority.\n11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on\nrecord. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading\nof the respect…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3161/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3160/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3159/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3158/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3157/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

SHEILA GOPAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE 2, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed in part and Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 3155/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Adv. Sanjay Sawant and Adv. Sanjeev ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(a)Section 234

…rt of such contention, ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Indian National Theatre Trust [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Delhi)  CIT vs. St. George Forana Church 170 ITR 62 (Kerala)  National Engg. Co-ordination Committee vs. Asst. CIT [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune) 10. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) strongly relied upon the observations of the A.O. and learned First Appellate Authority. 11. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We have also applied our mind to the decisions relied upon. On a careful reading of the respective…

THE HOLINESS DR. SYEDNA TAHER,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5463/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrisaktijit Dey & Shriramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Firoze B. AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan& Shri V.Justin
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)

…rned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) DIT(E) v/s Acme Educational Society, [2010] 326 ITR 146 (Del.); ii) CIT v/s Indian National Theater Trust, [2008] 305 ITR 149 (Del.); iii) National Engineering Co–ordination Committee v/s ACIT, [1992] 43 ITD 612 (Pune); iv) DDIT(E) v/s Shree Raj Foundation, ITA no.1242/Mum./2014, order dated 17.08.2016; v) Kanpur Subhash Shiksha Samiti v/s DCIT, [2011] 11 ITR 23 (Luck.); and vi) ACIT v/s MAC Public Charitable Trust, ITA no.1799/Mds./2012, dated 21.08.2013. 6. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals…