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

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

deemed automatically to be entitled to an exemption. This is, according to the learned ASG, clearly not the prevailing law. The distinction between claiming an exemption and the registration as a trust has even been admitted by the Trust also- as is evident from the wordings of ground 2 (e) raised by the assessee. It is thus reiterated and respectfully

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

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

deemed automatically to be entitled to an exemption. This is, according to the learned ASG, clearly not the prevailing law. The distinction between claiming an exemption and the registration as a trust has even been admitted by the Trust also- as is evident from the wordings of ground 2 (e) raised by the assessee. It is thus reiterated and respectfully

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

deemed automatically to be entitled to an exemption. This is, according to the learned ASG, clearly not the prevailing law. The distinction between claiming an exemption and the registration as a trust has even been admitted by the Trust also- as is evident from the wordings of ground 2 (e) raised by the assessee. It is thus reiterated and respectfully

NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

deemed automatically to be entitled to an exemption. This is, according to the learned ASG, clearly not the prevailing law. The distinction between claiming an exemption and the registration as a trust has even been admitted by the Trust also- as is evident from the wordings of ground 2 (e) raised by the assessee. It is thus reiterated and respectfully

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

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

deemed automatically to be entitled to an exemption. This is, according to the learned ASG, clearly not the prevailing law. The distinction between claiming an exemption and the registration as a trust has even been admitted by the Trust also- as is evident from the wordings of ground 2 (e) raised by the assessee. It is thus reiterated and respectfully

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

deemed to have been applied the income to the extent of Rs. 607.43 crores. As per the details, the assessee has applied Rs. 164.93 crores during the year and nothing has been brought before us to show that the shortfall of more than 446 crores has been applied in the immediate following year. Therefore, apparently the assessee trust

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

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

Charitable Trust-Procedure for registration – Assessee was a trust registered under Section 12 AA and was providing employment to poor women, assisting weaker section of the society for personal development, maintaining destitute homes, rehabilitation of victim of national calamities, etc- Assessee had invested a sum of Rs.20,000 in the share of MIOT Hospital Ltd- AO had passed an order

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

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

Charitable Trust-Procedure for registration – Assessee was a trust registered under Section 12 AA and was providing employment to poor women, assisting weaker section of the society for personal development, maintaining destitute homes, rehabilitation of victim of national calamities, etc- Assessee had invested a sum of Rs.20,000 in the share of MIOT Hospital Ltd- AO had passed an order

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

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

Charitable Trust-Procedure for registration – Assessee was a trust registered under Section 12 AA and was providing employment to poor women, assisting weaker section of the society for personal development, maintaining destitute homes, rehabilitation of victim of national calamities, etc- Assessee had invested a sum of Rs.20,000 in the share of MIOT Hospital Ltd- AO had passed an order

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

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

Charitable Trust-Procedure for registration – Assessee was a trust registered under Section 12 AA and was providing employment to poor women, assisting weaker section of the society for personal development, maintaining destitute homes, rehabilitation of victim of national calamities, etc- Assessee had invested a sum of Rs.20,000 in the share of MIOT Hospital Ltd- AO had passed an order

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

dividends’ and ‘property held in trust by way of rent ‘. And that is exactly the case with the assessee. Assessee has investments from which it derives interest and also has ‘property held in trust’ from which it derives income by way of rent which are ultimately applied to meet the ‘objects of the trust, that is, education and sometimes meeting

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

charitable institution under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee trust had filed its return of income on 30th September 2014, and its assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, was completed on 30th December 2016 determining ‘Nil’ taxable income. Subsequently, however, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’] issued

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

deemed to have been applied the income to the extent of Rs. 607.43 crores. As per the details, the assessee has applied Rs. 164.93 crores 3 ITA/3807/M/15,AY.11-12-Jamshetjee Tata Trust during the year and nothing has been brought before us to show that the shortfall of more than 446 crores has been applied in the immediate following year. Therefore, apparently

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

charitable and religions activities of the institute/corpus of the trust, for which Section 11(i)(d) of the Act is attracted and the said income is not liable for tax tinder the Act. [Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us] 41. What essentially follows is that it’s not the declaration of an investment being a corpus investment but the fact

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

charitable and religions activities of the institute/corpus of the trust, for which Section 11(i)(d) of the Act is attracted and the said income is not liable for tax tinder the Act. [Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us] 41. What essentially follows is that it’s not the declaration of an investment being a corpus investment but the fact

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

trust and the nomenclature in which the amount is kept in deposit is of no relevance as long as the contribution received are kept in deposit as capital and only the income from the said capital which is to be utilised for carrying on charitable and religions activities of the institute/corpus of the trust, for which Section

ADITYA BIRLA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

deem fit. 6 Aditya Birla Education Trust 6. The Ld.AR further argued that the trust imparts education in Cambridge and IB board curriculum from its very inception. The 2009 Trust deed was subject matter of approval by the Ld. CIT at that time. This aspect was reiterated in the 2013 amendment in clause 6(i) thereof. This amended trust deed

KOHINOOR EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Kohinoor Education Trust, The Assistant Commissioner Of Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. Income Tax (E)-1(1), Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W), Mumbai. Mumbai-400 028. Pan No. Aabtk2616D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Jayesh Dadia, Ar Revenue By : Shri K. Bhoopathi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2019 Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’] & Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The 1St Ground Of Appeal The Ld Cit(A| Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Denying Exemption Under Section 11 & 12 Of The Income Tax Act. The Action Is Unjustified & Unwarranted.

deemed to have been applied for the benefit of the person referred to in section 13(3) of the Act. Thus the Ld. DR argues that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) be affirmed. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. ITA 1359/MUM/2017/A.Y.2013-14