“Section 10(230)”

THE BOMBAY SOCIETY OF THE FRANCISCAN CLARIST SISTERS OF THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

provisions in the Finance Bill, 2022 and find that the amendment has been brought in the provisions of section 11 as well as section 10(230) of the Act with a view to bring consistency in the two exemption regimes which have been provided under the Act and as part

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

fact that exemption u/s 10(23C) (iv) of the Act can be denied for a particular assessment year if the mandate of section 10(230)(iv) has not been followed by the assessee trust even though the registration continues? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... computing the income at Rs.7,36,56,999/- as under:- “7. Assessee has claimed that it is holding registration under section 10(230)(iv) and therefore income must be exempt from tax. However, it is observed that the assessee trust is in the activities fee and charges. Thus the income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the\nRevenue are dismissed\n13

perusal of the Assessment Order we find\nthat in paragraph 6 the Assessing Officer has rejected the\nAssessee's Claim for exemption under Section 10(230) of the\nAct. Though it has been stated therein that /as discussed\nhereunder, there is no discussion on Section 10 ... adjudication of this issue. It is clarified that we have\nalready concluded that the Assessee would b be entitled to claim\nexemption under Section 10(230) of the Act and therefore, subject\nto fulfillment of application conditions, the Assessee would be\nentitled to claim exemption under Section 10

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the\nRevenue are dismissed\n13

fact that exemption u/s\n10(23C) (iv) of the Act can be denied for a particular assessment\nyear if the mandate of section 10(230)(iv) has not been followed by\nthe assessee trust even though the registration continues?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... perusal of the Assessment Order we find\nthat in paragraph 6 the Assessing Officer has rejected the\nAssessee's Claim for exemption under Section 10(230) of the\nAct. Though it has been stated therein that /as discussed\nhereunder, there is no discussion on Section 10

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the\nRevenue are dismissed\n13

fact that exemption u/s\n10(23C) (iv) of the Act can be denied for a particular assessment\nyear if the mandate of section 10(230)(iv) has not been followed by\nthe assessee trust even though the registration continues?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... perusal of the Assessment Order we find\nthat in paragraph 6 the Assessing Officer has rejected the\nAssessee's Claim for exemption under Section 10(230) of the\nAct. Though it has been stated therein that /as discussed\nhereunder, there is no discussion on Section 10

BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)- 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

public utility.\nIt has been noticed that a number of entities operating on commercial lines are claiming exemption on their income either under section 10(230) or section 11 of the Act on the ground that they are charitable institutions.\nThis is based on the argument that they are engaged ... public utility.\nIt has been noticed that a number of entities operating on commercial lines are claiming exemption on their income either under section 10(230) or section 11 of the Act on the ground that they are charitable institutions.\nThis is based on the argument that they are engaged