R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

capital in Tata Sons Limited as per the extracts of audited financial statement of Tata Sons Limited provided by the PCIT and hence the PCIT's conclusion that the Appellant was controlling a large business group through Tata Sons Limited was erroneous. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal, on 26th October 2020, as 3. follows

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

capital in Tata Sons Limited as per the extracts of audited financial statement of Tata Sons Limited provided by the PCIT and hence the PCIT's conclusion that the Appellant was controlling a large business group through Tata Sons Limited was erroneous. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal, on 26th October 2020, as 3. follows

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

capital in Tata Sons Limited as per the extracts of audited financial statement of Tata Sons Limited provided by the PCIT and hence the PCIT's conclusion that the Appellant was controlling a large business group through Tata Sons Limited was erroneous. The assessee has also filed an additional ground of appeal, on 26th October 2020, as 3. follows

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

gains of any business and hence Section 11(4A) has no application. 6) Ground of Appeal No.6 : The Assessing Officer erred in law stating that though he accepts that the Centre spends on some of the activities undertaken but how it spends the income is irrelevant, as the amounts spend are entirely towards the attainment of the objects

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

12A stand fulfilled. The effect of such a certificate of registration under section 12AA , therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12." CO No 45/Mum/20 ITA No. 2883/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2015-16 Page

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

12A stand fulfilled. The effect of such a certificate of registration under section 12AA , therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12." We find that the main objection of the departmental authorities was that

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

12A stand fulfilled. The effect of such a certi-ficate of registration under section 12AA , therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12." CO No 43/Mum/20 ITA No. 2881/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2013-14 Page

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

12A stand fulfilled. The effect of such a certificate of registration under section 12AA , therefore, cannot be ignored or wished away by the Assessing Officer by adopting a stand that the trust or institution is not fulfilling the conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12." We find that the main objection of the departmental authorities was that

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

capital assistance), sanctioned and disbursed by the lending institutions without any collateral security and/or third party guarantees to the new or existing SSI manufacturing units including information technology (IT) and software industries or such other industry(ies) as may be decided by the settlors from time to time; and to levy guarantee fee / annual service fee / other charges

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

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

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

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

12A of the Act vide registration No. INS/36857 dated 24/02/2003. Being a local authority in terms of aforesaid statute as well as within the meaning of then existing section 10(20) and section 10(20A) of the Act, the assessee enjoyed the blanket exemption under the provisions of the Act up to the assessment year 2002–03. The Finance

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

12A of the Act vide registration No. INS/36857 dated 24/02/2003. Being a local authority in terms of aforesaid statute as well as within the meaning of then existing section 10(20) and section 10(20A) of the Act, the assessee enjoyed the blanket exemption under the provisions of the Act up to the assessment year 2002–03. The Finance