DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gainfully refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust Vs UOI (273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gainfully refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust Vs UOI (273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gainfully refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust Vs UOI (273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Charitable Trust Therefore, section 11 to 13 would not operate as overriding affect to the section 10 of the Act. The language of these provisions does not suggest that either section 10 is subjected to the provisions of section 11 to 13 or section 11 to 13 has any overriding affect over section 10. Therefore, the benefit of section

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 prescribing two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section4(1) and, two, must be computed in the manner laid down under the Act. The capital

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

gains. Likewise, a business as a going concern would constitute a capital asset within the meaning of section 45 of the Act. Route permits, for plying buses, issued by authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act, are property for the deprivation of which compensation is payable to the permit holder, hence, such route permits are capital assets in the hands

PUNJAB KESARI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in above terms

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer (Exemption) – 2(2) Punjab Kesari Charitable Room No. 502, Trust, 5Th Floor, 242, Bhandar Galli, Vs. Piramal Chamber, L.J. Road, Mahim- 400016 Lalbaug- 400012, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp0040R Assessee By : Shri. S. M. Kapoor Revenue By : Ms Madhu Malati Ghosh (Cit-Dr)

capital expenditure as well as depreciation. The assessee trust did not submit any reply on that issue. Hence, the claim of assessee of depreciation of Rs.26,21,923/- was disallowed on account of double deduction claimed by the assessee. Further, the assessee has claimed exemption Under Section 11 of the Act, with regard to income from dispensaries and hospital

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(1), CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI

Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16\nprescribing two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise\nthe total amount of income, profits and gains referred\nto in section4(1) and, two, must be computed in the\nmanner laid down under the Act. The capital

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

gains of business, the provisions of clause (iii) of this proviso shall not apply unless the trust or institution maintains separate books of account in respect of such business. (emphasis supplied) 9. The contention of the revenue is that funds of the assessee Trust that were invested before 01.03.1983 in Tata Sons Ltd which is not a modes specified

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

gains of business, the provisions of clause (iii) of this proviso shall not apply unless the trust or institution maintains separate books of account in respect of such business. (emphasis supplied) 9. The contention of the revenue is that funds of the assessee Trust that were invested before 01.03.1983 in Tata Sons Ltd which is not a modes specified

PADMASHREE DR. D.Y.PATIL UNIVERSITY ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT INCOME TAX CC-7(1) , MUMBAI

charitable within the\nmeaning of section 2(15), it has applied and/or accumulated sums\nas required by section 11(1)(a), the explanation thereto and section\n11(2), it is duly registered under section 12A and has not violated\nsection 13. Further there is no private gain and all the funds are\nploughed back only into education. Thus accumulations

PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1), MUMBAI

trust has\nowned up the contents of documents/materials seized from the employees to\nbe true. On the contrary, the trustees have categorically denied the receipt of\ncapitation fees.\n27. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has examined the issue as to whether\nthe evidences found from a third party could be used against the assessee in\nyet another case

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

trust has\nowned up the contents of documents/materials seized from the employees to\nbe true. On the contrary, the trustees have categorically denied the receipt of\ncapitation fees.\n27. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has examined the issue as to whether\nthe evidences found from a third party could be used against the assessee in\nyet another case

PADMASHREE DR. D.Y.PATIL UNIVERSITY ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT INCOME TAX CC-7(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

trust has\nowned up the contents of documents/materials seized from the employees to\nbe true. On the contrary, the trustees have categorically denied the receipt of\ncapitation fees.\n27. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has examined the issue as to whether\nthe evidences found from a third party could be used against the assessee in\nyet another case

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

trust has\nowned up the contents of documents/materials seized from the employees to\nbe true. On the contrary, the trustees have categorically denied the receipt of\ncaptation fees.\n27.\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has examined the issue as to whether\nthe evidences found from a third party could be used against the assessee in\nyet another case

DCIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. PADMASHREE DR. D.Y. PATIL UNIVERSITY, NAVI MUMBAI

trust has\nowned up the contents of documents/materials seized from the employees to\nbe true. On the contrary, the trustees have categorically denied the receipt of\ncapitation fees.\n27.\nThe Hon'ble Delhi High Court has examined the issue as to whether\nthe evidences found from a third party could be used against the assessee in\nyet another case

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capitation fees. The trustee\nhas also stated that the employees might have collected it without the authority\nof the trust. Under the principle of vicarious liability, the employer is normally\nliable for any act performed by his employees during the course of\nemployment. However, when an employee does anything that is neither\ndirected nor controlled by the employer, then

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUMBALLA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

charitable or religious purpose can be considered as an application of income if such capital gain is utilized for acquiring another capital asset to be held by the Trust