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

natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by Honorable ITAT dated 07.10.2021. Honorable ITAT dated 07.10.2021. 3. Your appellate there for prays your Your appellate there for prays your honor to delete

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

natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by Honorable ITAT dated 07.10.2021. Honorable ITAT dated 07.10.2021. 3. Your appellate there for prays your Your appellate there for prays your honor to delete

JINSEVA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appe

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

charitable trust or institution shall be applied outside India. Even if it is applied outside India, then the assessee, subject to sec. applied outside India. Even if it is applied outside India, then the assessee, subject to sec. applied outside India. Even if it is applied outside India, then the assessee, subject to sec. 11(c) of the Act, would

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

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Charitable Trust wherein it was the premise of M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust wherein it was the premise of M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust wherein it was seen that Shri Vandravan P Shah has given donation u/s 35AC that Shri Vandravan P Shah has given donation u/s 35AC that Shri Vandravan P Shah has given donation u/s 35AC an amounting

ROSHAN CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Roshan Charitable Trust, C/O 29Th Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bank Street, Sonawala Building-Fort, 6Th Vs. (Exemptions), Floor, Piramal Mumbai-400023 Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan: Aactr2405A .. Appellant Respondent .. P.J. Pardiwala, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. K.B. Shukla (Citdr.) Date Of Hearing .. 27-10-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 04-11-2016

Charitable Trust, C/o 29th Commissioner of Income-Tax Bank Street, Sonawala Building-Fort, 6th Vs. (exemptions), Floor, Piramal Mumbai-400023 Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. PAN: AACTR2405A .. Appellant Respondent .. P.J. Pardiwala, AR Assessee by Revenue by .. K.B. Shukla (CITDR.) Date of hearing .. 27-10-2016 .. Date of pronouncement 04-11-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This

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.

natural justice in denying an opportunity to the Appellant to make its submissions, in spite of the Appellant specifically submitting so at para X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling

SHRI MAHASHRAMAN FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

charitable trust, in violation of principles of natural justice, without trust, in violation of principles of natural justice, without trust

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

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

natural justice. Forfeiture of Exemption for use of property by specified persons: The reply of the assessee is considered and it is concluded that the assessee trust property was used by specified persons defined in Section 13. of the Act. It is also evident from the reply that assessee trust has admitted the fact that the property was used

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

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

natural justice. Forfeiture of Exemption for use of property by specified persons: The reply of the assessee is considered and it is concluded that the assessee trust property was used by specified persons defined in Section 13. of the Act. It is also evident from the reply that assessee trust has admitted the fact that the property was used

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

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

natural justice. Forfeiture of Exemption for use of property by specified persons: The reply of the assessee is considered and it is concluded that the assessee trust property was used by specified persons defined in Section 13. of the Act. It is also evident from the reply that assessee trust has admitted the fact that the property was used

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

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

natural justice. Forfeiture of Exemption for use of property by specified persons: The reply of the assessee is considered and it is concluded that the assessee trust property was used by specified persons defined in Section 13. of the Act. It is also evident from the reply that assessee trust has admitted the fact that the property was used

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

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

natural justice in denying an opportunity to the Appellant to make its submissions, inspite of the Appellant specifically submitting so at para X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling 'Tata

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

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

natural justice in denying an opportunity to the Appellant to make its submissions, in spite of the Appellant specifically submitting so at para X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 4 of 36 c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving

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

natural justice in denying an opportunity to the Appellant to make its submissions, in spite of the Appellant specifically submitting so at para X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling

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

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

natural justice in denying an opportunity to the Appellant to make its submissions, inspite of the Appellant specifically submitting so at para X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 4 of 36 c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous

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

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

natural justice in denying an opportunity to the Appellant to make its submissions, inspite of the Appellant specifically submitting so at para X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 4 of 36 c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous