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

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

penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter of fact depending on each case and the evidence tendered by the parties. When statute prescribes certain punishment and if charges are framed accordingly, then, the Court after

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

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

penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter of fact depending on each case and the evidence tendered by the parties. When statute prescribes certain punishment and if charges are framed accordingly, then, the Court after

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

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

penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter of fact depending on each case and the evidence tendered by the parties. When statute prescribes certain punishment and if charges are framed accordingly, then, the Court after

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

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

penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter of fact depending on each case and the evidence tendered by the parties. When statute prescribes certain punishment and if charges are framed accordingly, then, the Court after

KALLIANJI CHATURBHUJ AND VIJAY CANTOL CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-1(4), MUMBAI

Trust. 3. Your appellant prays that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act on your appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars be deleted” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee being a charitable

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

penalty is covered by clause (b) thereof. In other words, independent appeals arise out of orders of assessment and orders imposing any penalty. In this case, the order that was before the Commissioner (Appeals) was an order imposing a penalty and not an assessment order. If the assessment order that resulted in the penalty proceedings being instituted was before

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

penalty is covered by clause (b) thereof. In other words, independent appeals arise out of orders of assessment and orders imposing any penalty. In this case, the order that was before the Commissioner (Appeals) was an order imposing a penalty and not an assessment order. If the assessment order that resulted in the penalty proceedings being instituted was before

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

penalty is covered by clause (b) thereof. In other words, independent appeals arise out of orders of assessment and orders imposing any penalty. In this case, the order that was before the Commissioner (Appeals) was an order imposing a penalty and not an assessment order. If the assessment order that resulted in the penalty proceedings being instituted was before

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

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 Trust to be a Director in a company in which the Trust holds shares also holds a fiduciary relationship with the Trust and fiduciary duty towards the nameless, faceless beneficiaries of those Trusts". (Para 19.24 in page 334 of PB) Therefore in our considered view there is merit in the submission that the right to nominate persons

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 Trust to be a Director in a company in which the Trust holds shares also holds a fiduciary relationship with the Trust and fiduciary duty towards the nameless, faceless beneficiaries of those Trusts". (Para 19.24 in page 334 of PB) Therefore in our considered view there is merit in the submission that the right to nominate persons

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Charitable Trust in its books (M/s. Navjeevan Trust), we find that the conclusion or finding of fact recorded by DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai in his satisfaction note that the same belongs to the assessee is per-se erroneous. Since the DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai erred in his finding regarding the jurisdictional fact [ i.e, seized documents A-1/154

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Charitable Trust in its books (M/s. Navjeevan Trust), we find that the conclusion or finding of fact recorded by DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai in his satisfaction note that the same belongs to the assessee is per-se erroneous. Since the DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai erred in his finding regarding the jurisdictional fact [ i.e, seized documents A-1/154

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Charitable Trust in its books (M/s. Navjeevan Trust), we find that the conclusion or finding of fact recorded by DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai in his satisfaction note that the same belongs to the assessee is per-se erroneous. Since the DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai erred in his finding regarding the jurisdictional fact [ i.e, seized documents A-1/154

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Charitable Trust in its books (M/s. Navjeevan Trust), we find that the conclusion or finding of fact recorded by DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai in his satisfaction note that the same belongs to the assessee is per-se erroneous. Since the DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai erred in his finding regarding the jurisdictional fact [ i.e, seized documents A-1/154

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Charitable Trust in its books (M/s. Navjeevan Trust), we find that the conclusion or finding of fact recorded by DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai in his satisfaction note that the same belongs to the assessee is per-se erroneous. Since the DCIT-CC-2(1), Mumbai erred in his finding regarding the jurisdictional fact [ i.e, seized documents A-1/154