DATTATRAY N SAWANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 2360/Mum/2013 is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Charitable Trust in 2004. The trust is carrying activity of running a school. The land ITA 2360/Mum/2013 7 purchased by the trust was encroached by some of the hutments. The piece of land was not having proper approach road. Hence the Trust found it difficult to develop the place and carry out its school activities. • Mr. D. N. Sawant (Karta

DEDHIA MUSIC FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

charitable trust or institution shall be applied outside India. Even if it is applied outside India, then the assessee, subject to sec. 11(c) of the Act, would not get exemption of the income so applied u/s 11 of the Act. Hence the Ld CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application of the on apprehension entertained

DEDHIA MUSIC FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

charitable trust or institution shall be applied outside India. Even if it is applied outside India, then the assessee, subject to sec. 11(c) of the Act, would not get exemption of the income so applied u/s 11 of the Act. Hence the Ld CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application of the on apprehension entertained

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

income derived from property held under trust. 9 Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed the deduction twice. The assessee trust claimed depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition

M/S MANTHAN INC ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 19(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Manthan Inc, Acit Cir. 19(2), Rani Bldg., V.P. Road, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm 6011 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Dilip Diwan, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

Income-tax Department tax Department that M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry of Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry o Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry o donations u/s 35AC(1) of the Act u/s 35AC(1) of the Act to various parties. to various parties. The information interalia alia

M/S MANTHAN INC,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 19(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Manthan Inc, Acit Cir. 19(2), Rani Bldg., V.P. Road, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm 6011 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Dilip Diwan, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

Income-tax Department tax Department that M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry of Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry o Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry o donations u/s 35AC(1) of the Act u/s 35AC(1) of the Act to various parties. to various parties. The information interalia alia

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

addition of Rs.159,12,82,169/- made by the AO u/s 115BBC in relation to anonymous donations received by the assessee Trust. Before us, the Ld. CIT DR for Revenue, Dr. Kishor Dhule, argued that, the AO had rightly held that the assessee was only a charitable organization and not both charitable & religious organization and therefore not entitled to avail

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

addition of Rs.159,12,82,169/- made by the AO u/s 115BBC in relation to anonymous donations received by the assessee Trust. Before us, the Ld. CIT DR for Revenue, Dr. Kishor Dhule, argued that, the AO had rightly held that the assessee was only a charitable organization and not both charitable & religious organization and therefore not entitled to avail

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

addition of Rs.159,12,82,169/- made by the AO u/s 115BBC in relation to anonymous donations received by the assessee Trust. Before us, the Ld. CIT DR for Revenue, Dr. Kishor Dhule, argued that, the AO had rightly held that the assessee was only a charitable organization and not both charitable & religious organization and therefore not entitled to avail

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

addition of Rs.159,12,82,169/- made by the AO u/s 115BBC in relation to anonymous donations received by the assessee Trust. Before us, the Ld. CIT DR for Revenue, Dr. Kishor Dhule, argued that, the AO had rightly held that the assessee was only a charitable organization and not both charitable & religious organization and therefore not entitled to avail

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of CIT Vs. A.I.N. Rao Charitable Trust (1995) 129 CTR 205. In view of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench we allowed this issue in favour of the assessee and delete the addition

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 10. Now, the assessee has revised its claim and filed a revised form 10 alongwith copy of board resolution vide its from 10 dated 07-09-2018. We find that the assessee has passed a resolution to accumulate additional income

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

addition made to the total income, conclusion drawn in the impugned order, material available on record, assertions made by the ld. respective counsel, if kept in juxtaposition and analyzed, there is no dispute to the fact that the impugned amount was duly disclosed in the income and expenditure account and the expenditure is excess over the income. The total income

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

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\n10. Now, the assessee has revised its claim and filed a revised\nform 10 alongwith copy of board resolution vide its from 10\ndated 07-09-2018. We find that the assessee has passed a\nresolution to accumulate additional income