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

cash or anonymously, and had therefore fixed limit of 5% of total donations as permissible anonymous donations to charitable trusts which would not be hit by rigors of Section 115BBC of the Act. According to him, since the assessee Trust had received anonymous donations in excess of the prescribe limit, the AO had rightly invoked the provisions of Section 115BBC

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

cash or anonymously, and had therefore fixed limit of 5% of total donations as permissible anonymous donations to charitable trusts which would not be hit by rigors of Section 115BBC of the Act. According to him, since the assessee Trust had received anonymous donations in excess of the prescribe limit, the AO had rightly invoked the provisions of Section 115BBC

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

cash or anonymously, and had therefore fixed limit of 5% of total donations as permissible anonymous donations to charitable trusts which would not be hit by rigors of Section 115BBC of the Act. According to him, since the assessee Trust had received anonymous donations in excess of the prescribe limit, the AO had rightly invoked the provisions of Section 115BBC

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

cash or anonymously, and had therefore fixed limit of 5% of total donations as permissible anonymous donations to charitable trusts which would not be hit by rigors of Section 115BBC of the Act. According to him, since the assessee Trust had received anonymous donations in excess of the prescribe limit, the AO had rightly invoked the provisions of Section 115BBC

DAWAT E ISLAMI HIND,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

cash deposits in SBNs 3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred in directing for fresh verification of allowance of deduction u/s. 11(1)(d) of the Act which was disallowed by the Ld. A.O. in order u/s. 143(3) of the Act but later on allowed by passing rectification order

M/S GOVINDRAM & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

charitable activity by the Trust. iv. The crucial finding of the investigation wing, that so-called donation deposited by cheque has ultimately been withdrawn in cash

M/S GOVINDRAM & CO.,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is also dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

charitable activity by the Trust. iv. The crucial finding of the investigation wing, that so-called donation deposited by cheque has ultimately been withdrawn in cash

ITO (E)-II(1), MUMBAI vs. KALYANI CARTIABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Assessment Year :2010-11 Ito (E)-Ii(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kalyani Charitable Trust, C/O. Ravi Communication, Jj Hospital Campus, Byculla, Mumbai- 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aaatk3179R Appellant) .. Respondent)

deposit of Rs.9 crores and monthly lease rentals of Rs.5 lakhs against a property of Rs.31 crores which in itself proves that the 2 M/s. Kalyani Charitable Trust lease deed is of diverting the funds of the assessee to its interested concern. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred

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

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

cash by collecting the evidences that same is used for the purposes of the residence of Bhujbal family and therefore, relying on the finding of the learned Joint Charity ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 Commissioner , he held that there is no violation of the provision of Section

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

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

cash by collecting the evidences that same is used for the purposes of the residence of Bhujbal family and therefore, relying on the finding of the learned Joint Charity ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 Commissioner , he held that there is no violation of the provision of Section

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

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

cash by collecting the evidences that same is used for the purposes of the residence of Bhujbal family and therefore, relying on the finding of the learned Joint Charity ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 Commissioner , he held that there is no violation of the provision of Section

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

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

cash by collecting the evidences that same is used for the purposes of the residence of Bhujbal family and therefore, relying on the finding of the learned Joint Charity ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 Commissioner , he held that there is no violation of the provision of Section

PANDHI CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanpandhi Charitable Trust Vs. Cit (Exemption) 303, Mint Chambers, 45/47, Mint R. No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pan: Aaatp9226F Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026

cash or in such other forms and on such terms and conditions as Trustees shall deem fit PROVIDED HOWEVER that in case of medical treatment to be obtained abroad, financial help should be rendered in India.” 7. On perusal of the contents of the trust deed as extracted above, it is evident that the charitable activity will be carried

MAJLIS E KHUDDAMUL MADARI S,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM. WARD 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2017-18 Majlis E Khuddamul Madari S, Ito(Exem), Ward-2(1), 14, Uasim Mansion, Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Koleueheri Village, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Chinchpada, Lal Baug, Parel, Kalina, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400098. Pan : Aaaam0694F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 25-06-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Charitable Trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and also with the Charity Commissioner. The matter was initially take up for scrutiny to examine cash deposits

DCIT CC-5(2) CENTRAL RANGE-5, MUMBAI vs. JAYANAND RELIGIOUS TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Jayananad Religious Trust Dcit Cc-5(2) Shop No. 1, 148, Rasik Kunj, Central Range-5, Room No. 1908, Air India Bldg, Jain Society, Sion (W), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 022 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaatj8901F Assessee By : Sh. Sanjay Kapadia, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Nishant Somaiya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2022

depositing the above sum in the bank account. The learned AO considered the statement of the trustee recorded during the survey and held that cash donation received of ₹290,58,000/- received from unexplained sources and unidentifiable persons. Out of which assessee has already declared a sum of ₹6,132,500/- as undisclosed income and the balance

AYYAPPA SEVA SAMGHAM BOMBAY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-53, MUMBAI

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

cash deposits and on other consequential grounds. 2 Ayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay 2. The brief facts are that the assessee is a religious charitable trust

SHREE VAGAD VISHA OSWAL CHOVISI MAHAJAN CHARITABLE TRUST,MALAD EAST vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMP)-II(2) MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILLS

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishshree Vagad Visha Oswal Chovisi Assistant Director Of Income Tax-Ii(2), Mahajan Charitable, Mumbai 103, 1St Floor, Shree Parimal, Daftary Road, Malad East, Vs. Mumbai - 400097

Charitable Trust 4. The relevant facts necessary are for deciding the legal issue raised in Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are, the assessee is a Trust. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income on 29.09.2010, declaring NIL income after claiming exemption. Subsequently, based on information received that the assessee had deposited cash

ACIT 25 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. ANJANA LAXMIDAS VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 25 (2) Room Number 220, Second Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Floor, Vora Kautilya Bhavan 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv0293L Co 70/Mumbai/2021 (Assessment Years 2016 – 17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Tax – 25 (2) Vora Room Number 220, Second 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Floor, Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent)

deposit of the fund in the corpus of the trust to 1993 by the settler, this amount was not taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries as per provisions of income tax act 1961, and thus, one settled in the corpus, the nature of the amount will not change upon subsequent remittance to India in later years . Thus, the remittance