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

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee was established in 1919. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 with the total income at a deficit of Rs. 55,36,69,321/- During the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income from shares amounting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since 1976 and is carrying out its activity strictly in conformity with its objects. The assessee filed return of income for both the assessment years declaring total income at Nil by claiming the exemption under section 11 of the Act. The notice under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment was completed

DY CIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A) of section 80IA of the IT Act, merely neutralises applicability of sub-section (12) and does not disentitle the successor entities to claim deduction in accordance with section 80IA of the IT Act. Accordingly, AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee with respect to eligible units acquired from SCL. Accordingly, Ground no.1

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A) of section 80IA of the IT Act, merely neutralises applicability of sub-section (12) and does not disentitle the successor entities to claim deduction in accordance with section 80IA of the IT Act. Accordingly, AO is directed to allow the deduction as claimed by the assessee with respect to eligible units acquired from SCL. Accordingly, Ground no.1

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

12A and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has also been approved in terms 2 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). of Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act by the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai [in short ‘CCIT, Mumbai’]. 4. For the relevant

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

12A and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has also been approved in terms 2 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). of Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act by the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai [in short ‘CCIT, Mumbai’]. 4. For the relevant

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

12A and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has also been approved in terms 2 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). of Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act by the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai [in short ‘CCIT, Mumbai’]. 4. For the relevant

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

12A and 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has also been approved in terms 2 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). of Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act by the Ld. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai [in short ‘CCIT, Mumbai’]. 4. For the relevant

DCIT(CC)-8(3) , MUMBAI vs. SANTOSH VIMLESH MEHTA, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit(Cc)-8(3) Santosh Vimlesh Mehta Room No. 661 6Th Floor, Aaykar 10, Mumbadevi Road, Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan No. Abhpm 0883 H Appellant Respondent

capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the capital; it was required to make disclosure to the company and the BSE under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations 1997 and under BSE under Regulation 7(1) of SAST Regulations 1997 and under BSE under

UNIVERSAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIT (E) II(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleuniversal Education Foundation V. Assistant Director Of Income-Tax (Exemption) – Ii(2) 1St Floor, Filka Building Mumbai Daftary Road, Malad (W) Mumbai - 400097 Pan: Aabcu0516D (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain is chargeable for the assessment year 2011-12. 11. Hence, since the payment as mentioned in the assignment deed was not received by M/s. Universal Education Foundation and there was no surety of the receipt of the same in future it was not reflected in Balance Sheet and not taxed during the year. 12. There in uncertainty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 2(15) of the Act. The Appellant submitted that it has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act since the activities of the Appellant are charitable in nature. The Ld. AO after relying on the assessment order for AY 2010-11 denied exemption of section 11 by stating that the Appellant Trust is not a valid trust and also

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 2(15) of the Act. The Appellant submitted that it has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act since the activities of the Appellant are charitable in nature. The Ld. AO after relying on the assessment order for AY 2010-11 denied exemption of section 11 by stating that the Appellant Trust is not a valid trust and also

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Act. The assessee conducts various courses in the field of gemology through formal class rooms through instructors. The assessee issues certificates at the end of the course to the students who successfully clear the various levels of grading. The assessee is claiming exemption u/s.11 on the ground that the assessee is a charitable institution engaged in imparting

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Act. The assessee conducts various courses in the field of gemology through formal class rooms through instructors. The assessee issues certificates at the end of the course to the students who successfully clear the various levels of grading. The assessee is claiming exemption u/s.11 on the ground that the assessee is a charitable institution engaged in imparting

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Act. The assessee conducts various courses in the field of gemology through formal class rooms through instructors. The assessee issues certificates at the end of the course to the students who successfully clear the various levels of grading. The assessee is claiming exemption u/s.11 on the ground that the assessee is a charitable institution engaged in imparting

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Act. The assessee conducts various courses in the field of gemology through formal class rooms through instructors. The assessee issues certificates at the end of the course to the students who successfully clear the various levels of grading. The assessee is claiming exemption u/s.11 on the ground that the assessee is a charitable institution engaged in imparting

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Act. The assessee conducts various courses in the field of gemology through formal class rooms through instructors. The assessee issues certificates at the end of the course to the students who successfully clear the various levels of grading. The assessee is claiming exemption u/s.11 on the ground that the assessee is a charitable institution engaged in imparting

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

12A of the Act. The assessee conducts various courses in the field of gemology through formal class rooms through instructors. The assessee issues certificates at the end of the course to the students who successfully clear the various levels of grading. The assessee is claiming exemption u/s.11 on the ground that the assessee is a charitable institution engaged in imparting