“maximum marginal rate”

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

further erred in upholding the order to the Ao that the income of the trust was chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate which conclusion is contrary to the position in law and the facts of the case. 5. The claim of the Appellant as to computation of total ... confirming the action of the AO that the income of the assessee trust was chargeable to tax at maximum margin rate. It has been held by the AO in the assessment order at para 10 that provisions of section 164(1) of the Act will be applicable in the case

ACIT-17(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Employees Stock Option Trust., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

further erred in upholding the order to the Ao that the income of the trust was chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate which conclusion is contrary to the position in law and the facts of the case. 5. The claim of the Appellant as to computation of total ... confirming the action of the AO that the income of the assessee trust was chargeable to tax at maximum margin rate. It has been held by the AO in the assessment order at para 10 that provisions of section 164(1) of the Act will be applicable in the case

ACIT 12(3)2(), Mumbai vs. Manohar Packaging Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

recipient company has declared the commission amount in its Return of Income and paid taxes and both the companies are paying taxes at maximum marginal rate. The department also accepted the income disclosed by the recipient company. Similar issue was dealt by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi ... hand, learned Authorised Representative (‘learned AR’) by vehemently relying upon the impugned order submitted that both the parties are paying taxes at the maximum marginal rate and TDS was deducted by the assessee before making the impugned commission payment. The learned AR further submitted that for invoking the provisions

Estate of Late Harkishin Bhojraj Chanrai, Mumbai vs. DCIT CPC, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Estate Of Late Harkishin Bhojraj Chanrai The Dcit 42A, Advent, Gen Jagannath Cpc, Bhosale Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aabae0681R Assessee By : Ms Rajni Ram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2022

Persons' instead of Individual, only on the ground that the there were two executors of the Assessee and consequently erred in charging the maximum marginal rate of tax instead of normal tax slab rates that apply to senior citizen individual.” 03. Briefly stated fact of the case shows that assessee ... assessee at returned income, however, tax liability of the Estate of Late Harkishin Bhojraj Chanrai; A.Y. 19-20 assessee was computed at Maximum Marginal Rate at ₹4,01,937/- instead of ₹2,06,937/-. 05. Assessee aggrieved with that intimation preferred the appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6364/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, R. No. 642, 6Th Floor, ‘A’ Aidun Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1St Dhobhi Talao, John Crasto Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Lane, Mumbai-400 002 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aahps3906Q (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No. 247/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mayank Jashwantlal Shah, बनाम/ Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. P. Rastogi, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Hiro Rai, Ld. Ar सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 14.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 27.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.08.2018 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-9, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 2

name of assessee. He also noted that all other shareholders have offered the share interest received from the escrow account at a maximum marginal rate, so taxing the net amount in the hands of the assessee is untenable as the same would be a double taxation. He further held that

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

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 quoted shares which was Rs.10,89,469/- in A.Y.2009-10

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

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 quoted shares which was Rs.10,89,469/- in A.Y.2009-10

Estate of Late Harkishin Bhojraj Chanrai, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleestate Of Late Harkishin Bhojraj Chanrai V. Dcit, Cpc 42 A Advent, Gen Jagannath Bhosale Marg Churchgate, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aabae0681R

Persons’ instead of Individual’, only on the ground that the there were two executors of the Assessee and consequently erred in charging the maximum marginal rate of tax instead of normal tax slab rates that apply to senior citizen individual.” 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ld.CIT

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

made in modes other than prescribed under section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the I.T. Act is to be charged at maximum marginal rate and the entire exemption u/s 11 or 12 cannot be denied despite the clear and unambiguous language of section 13(1)(d) according ... held that only the part of income which is violative of Section 13(1)(d) can be brought to tax at maximum marginal rate and not the entirety of income claimed to be exempt under Section 11 of the Act. 18. In view of the above, we do not find

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

section 164(2) when it categorically refers to forfeiture of exemption for breach of section 13(1)(d), resulting in levy of maximum marginal rate of tax only to that part of the income A.Y. 2012-13 Tata Social Welfare Trust & Tata Education Trust which has forfeited exemption. It does ... refer to the entire income being subjected to maximum marginal rate of tax.” Further, Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal: 261 Taxmann 12 held that on a plain reading of sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

section 164(2) when it categorically refers to forfeiture of exemption for breach of section 13(1)(d), resulting in levy of maximum marginal rate of tax only to that part of the income A.Y. 2012-13 Tata Social Welfare Trust & Tata Education Trust which has forfeited exemption. It does ... refer to the entire income being subjected to maximum marginal rate of tax.” Further, Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal: 261 Taxmann 12 held that on a plain reading of sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO (E)-2(4) (No Assessed by the ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

section 164(2) when it categorically refers to forfeiture of exemption for breach of section 13(1)(d), resulting in levy of maximum marginal rate of tax only to that part of the income A.Y. 2012-13 Tata Social Welfare Trust & Tata Education Trust which has forfeited exemption. It does ... refer to the entire income being subjected to maximum marginal rate of tax.” Further, Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal: 261 Taxmann 12 held that on a plain reading of sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that

Tata Social Welfare Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO(E)-2(4) (Now Assessed by the ACIT-17(3) ), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee’s and revenue

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3079/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Tata Social Welfare Trust बिधम/ Ito (Exemption)-2(4) Bombay House, (Now Assessed By The Acit- Vs. 24, Homi Mody Street, 17(3), Mumbai), Piramal Fort, Mumbai-400001. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No: Aaatt9834B

section 164(2) when it categorically refers to forfeiture of exemption for breach of section 13(1)(d), resulting in levy of maximum marginal rate of tax only to that part of the income A.Y. 2012-13 Tata Social Welfare Trust & Tata Education Trust which has forfeited exemption. It does ... refer to the entire income being subjected to maximum marginal rate of tax.” Further, Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Audyogik Shikshan Mandal: 261 Taxmann 12 held that on a plain reading of sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that

Estate of Suresh Vallabhji Vora, Mumbai vs. AO WD 23(3) (4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Estate Of Suresh Vallabhji Vora, Ao Ward 23(3)(4), 201(A), 2Nd Floor, Unique Centre, 15 Matru Mnadir, Tardeo Road, Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400 007. 400050. Pan No. Aabae 5685 M Appellant Respondent

recognize that the Executors of the Estate of Late Shri Suresh V.Vora did not form an Association of Persons (AOP) to which the maximum marginal rate of tax applied. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts in not recognizing that the PAN allotted to the appellant erroneously contained ... Bangalore assessed the total income vide order u/s 143(1) of the Act, at the returned income, however computed tax on income at maximum marginal rate treating the status of assessee as Association of Persons (AOP). 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

Nilkanth Mahadev Bala Hanuman Mandir, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed, in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.2065/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) आअसं.2066/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Nilkanth Mahadev Bala Hanuman Mandir, Motilal Nagar No.1, Shrirang Sabde Marg, Near Post Office, Motilal Nagar, Goregaon (W) Mumbai 400 104. Pan: Aabtn-6127-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax -31(2)(4), Cpc Bangalore, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh S. Athavale ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

06/06/2018. The Assessing Officer /CPC without notice to the assessee taxed the income offered by the assessee on maximum marginal rate. Aggrieved by the higher rate of tax in an unilateral action by the Assessing Officer / CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed ... could have only beenpossible after notice to the assessee. In the present case no notice was ever served on the assessee before applying maximum marginal rate of tax on the income returned. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court

Nilkanth Mahadev Bala Hanuman Mandir, Mumbai vs. CPC, Bangalore Income Tax Officer, 31(2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed, in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman आअसं.2065/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2017-18) आअसं.2066/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2018-19) Nilkanth Mahadev Bala Hanuman Mandir, Motilal Nagar No.1, Shrirang Sabde Marg, Near Post Office, Motilal Nagar, Goregaon (W) Mumbai 400 104. Pan: Aabtn-6127-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax -31(2)(4), Cpc Bangalore, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rajesh S. Athavale ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 18/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

06/06/2018. The Assessing Officer /CPC without notice to the assessee taxed the income offered by the assessee on maximum marginal rate. Aggrieved by the higher rate of tax in an unilateral action by the Assessing Officer / CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed ... could have only beenpossible after notice to the assessee. In the present case no notice was ever served on the assessee before applying maximum marginal rate of tax on the income returned. The ld.Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court