“Section 11(5)”

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(3), Mumbai-400021 vs. Board of Examination for Seafares Trust, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1163/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Board Of Examination Dcit-Cc – 5(3), For Seafarers Trust R. No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air बिधम/ Plot 94, Imei House, India Building, Nariman Vs. Sector 19, Nerul, Navi Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 706 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabtb1052C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Karthik Natarajan, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 24.12.2021, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2017-18. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A

M/S Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations in India, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed and additions amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Federation Of Freight Forwarders Associations, 311/313, Mahinder Chambers, W.T. Patil Marg, Opp. Dukes Factory, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aaatf0039J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(3), Piramal Chambers 4Th Floor, Dr. S.S. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

further held as under: “4.3 Further, the assessee in its submission gives reference to provision of investment of interest within the meaning of section 11(5) of the IT Act. However, the assessee failed to pay heed to the CBDT's Circular (supra) as well as the facts mentioned hereunder

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

been invested or deposited for any part of the year in consonance with the provisions of section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) shall be charged to tax at the maximum marginal rate of tax. During the year, from the records it is seen that the book value

Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Range-II(Now Assessed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, while appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

been invested or deposited for any part of the year in consonance with the provisions of section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) shall be charged to tax at the maximum marginal rate of tax. During the year, from the records it is seen that the book value

Minim Charitable Foundation, Bandra West vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for a statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1840/Mum/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17

excluded in computing 5 years. • Money so accumulated or set aside is invested or deposited in specified mode as mentioned under section 11(5). The submission of the said Form is not an automatic or trivial process and reflects the actual state of affairs in the said entity. There

R.D.Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (Now Assessed by the Asstt.CIT 17(3)), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

shares of Tata Sons Ltd. which was a prohibited mode of investment as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 11(5) of the Act. Further, the Assessee had also violated the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) of the Act as the Assessee-Trust ... amount of income derived from investment in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. in contravention of provision of Section 11(5) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) allowed Assessee‟s claim of exemption of dividend income amounting to INR 7,07,04,000/- under Section

The M.K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

assessee. The CIT vide aforesaid notice observed that assessee has invested its funds in shares which is prohibited mode of investment prescribed under section 11(5) r.w. section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The CIT further observed that unless such an investment is covered under exceptions provided under section

The M.K Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

assessee. The CIT vide aforesaid notice observed that assessee has invested its funds in shares which is prohibited mode of investment prescribed under section 11(5) r.w. section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The CIT further observed that unless such an investment is covered under exceptions provided under section

Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 773/मुं/2021 (िन.व.2016-17) Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaats1013P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Amol Kirtane, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

alleged failure of the Assessing Officer in not examining whether investments held by the assessee are in conformity with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, and in not examining whether the assessee is covered by the exceptions carved out under proviso to Section 13(1)(d). आअसं ... this aspect of the matter is concerned, we have noted that the Assessing Officer has extensively examined the compliance with the requirements of Section 11(5) and Section13(1)(d) of the Act. Vide letter dated 2nd December 2016, the Assessing Officer specifically asked the assessee "whether any investment

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2)), Mumbai vs. Navjbai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

been invested or deposited for any part of the year in consonance with the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5) shall be charged to tax at the maximum marginal rate of tax. During the year, from the records it is seen that the book value ... gains in the income statement, the assessee has failed to disclose the income. In view of the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 11(5), exemption u/s.11 should have been denied on the investment of Rs.1034 Crores. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent