DY CIT-CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry

DY CIT-CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry

DY CIT-CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D Y PATIL EDUCATIONAL ACADEMY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Kuldip Singh

carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry

MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) - I(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

losses. The AO has observed that the assessee has been generating huge surplus year after year. We notice that the above said observation of the AO does not appear to be correct if we look at the financial statements of the assessee. We notice that the surplus is generated from out of other income of the assessee and not from

DY CIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI vs. DR. D.Y. PATIL SPORTS ACADEMY , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Sood

carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry

INCOME TAX OFFICER (E) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SOCIETY OF FRANCISCAN BROTHERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

carry forward of losses was relevant That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry

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

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

carrying out the activities as per the Objects of the trust and ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 therefore, the action of the LD. AO to deny the exemption U/s 11 of the income Tax Act, 1961 is not according to the basic princpfes of Law and against natural justice

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

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

carrying out the activities as per the Objects of the trust and ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 therefore, the action of the LD. AO to deny the exemption U/s 11 of the income Tax Act, 1961 is not according to the basic princpfes of Law and against natural justice

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

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

carrying out the activities as per the Objects of the trust and ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 therefore, the action of the LD. AO to deny the exemption U/s 11 of the income Tax Act, 1961 is not according to the basic princpfes of Law and against natural justice

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

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

carrying out the activities as per the Objects of the trust and ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 therefore, the action of the LD. AO to deny the exemption U/s 11 of the income Tax Act, 1961 is not according to the basic princpfes of Law and against natural justice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee o any trade

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

carried forwardfor set off in the later years would be Rs.1,60,23,458 - Rs.1,21,61,909.33 Ps. Viz., Rs.38,61,909.67 Ps. 23. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that though the order of the AO was erroneous, the same was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as no part of the capital gain became

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. SOCIETY OF CONGREGATION OF FRANCISCAN BROTHERS, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

carry forward of losses was relevant That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry

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

loss has been financed by the interest income and income form letting out of the trust assets. The expenses incurred by the appellant trusts pertain to maintenance of the trust property and capital 21 Nehru Centre expenses on trust property and overall administration of the Trust. These expenses would have to be incurred whether the trust assets have been

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

carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a charitable trust, there was no provision for carry

ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SRI SRI RADHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito (E)-2(3) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 513, 5Th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. Pan:Aafts2570L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari (Dr) Assessee By : Sh. Nishant Thakkar With Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala- Advocates. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1

loss account. The primarily reason is that the assessee had generated substantial revenue. The ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of order of ld CIT(A) in assessment year 2010-11 dated 28.04.2015. The order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2010-11 is based on the order of Tribunal in assessment year

ITO (E) -I(1), MUMBAI vs. DR..D.Y PATIL SPORTS ACADEMY, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

carry forward of losses was relevant That, in the case of a charitable trust, there was no provision for carry

ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. KUTCHI KADVA PTIDAR GNYATI TRUST FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Ito (E) 2 (3) Vs. Kutchi Kadva Patidar R.No.513, Gnyati Trust Fund Piramal Chamber, Patidar Wadi, Lbs Marg Lalbaug, Lower Parel Ghatkopar (W) Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 086 Pan/Gir No. Aacts0647K Appellant) Respondent) ..

carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry