DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

assessment. The fact that the recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22 recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22 recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22-9- 1992 was not noticed by the Income Tax Officer. This is not a 1992 was not noticed by the Income Tax Officer. This

DR BATRAS POSITIVE HEALTH CLINIC PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Ita Nos. 2748, 2747 & 2761/Mum/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Dr Batras Positive Health Clinic Cit(A), National Faceless Pvt. Ltd., Appeal Centre, Delhi. 2Nd Floor, H Kantilal Compound, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Andheri East-400072 Pan No. Aabcd 3857 G Appellant Respondent

assessment. The fact that the recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22 recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22 recognition granted to this charitable trust had expired on 22-9- 1992 was not noticed by the Income Tax Officer. This is not a 1992 was not noticed by the Income Tax Officer. This

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

charitable contribution. The convergence of both, without clear legislative authorization, would both, without clear legislative authorization, would undermine the undermine the architecture of the tax law and CSR policy. architecture of the tax law and CSR policy. The argument that only certain clauses of section 80G (like The argument that only certain clauses of section 80G (like The argument that

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 for commission. The assessment of entry providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the accommodation transaction was taxed. Few do accommodation transaction was taxed. Few donors covered u/s nors covered u/s Estate of Vandravan P Shah

DCIT (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI vs. J.K.TRUST BOMBAY, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

charitable in nature”. It is further recorded by the assessing officer that it is further seen that trust is engaged in certain activities which are commercial in nature therefore it has resulted in understatement of income accordingly in order to arrive at the real income of the assessee the assessment was reopened

J.K.TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) 2 (1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1564/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

charitable in nature”. It is further recorded by the assessing officer that it is further seen that trust is engaged in certain activities which are commercial in nature therefore it has resulted in understatement of income accordingly in order to arrive at the real income of the assessee the assessment was reopened

HASMUKH I GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

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

assessment was reopened by the AO on the information received from LGT Bank regarding Ambrunova Trust in which the name of the assessee was appearing as a beneficiary. Before the ld. AO, it was contended by the assessee that the documents so received by the Department regarding the Trust (LGT Bank) are unauthenticated and unverified and thus reopening is incorrect

HASMUKH I GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

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

assessment was reopened by the AO on the information received from LGT Bank regarding Ambrunova Trust in which the name of the assessee was appearing as a beneficiary. Before the ld. AO, it was contended by the assessee that the documents so received by the Department regarding the Trust (LGT Bank) are unauthenticated and unverified and thus reopening is incorrect

CHINTAN H GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee’s stand dismissed

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

assessment was reopened by the AO on the information received from LGT Bank regarding Ambrunova Trust in which the name of the assessee was appearing as a beneficiary. Before the ld. AO, it was contended by the assessee that the documents so received by the Department regarding the Trust (LGT Bank) are unauthenticated and unverified and thus reopening is incorrect

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

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

assessment it cannot be held that there is any kind of breach and or violation by the said trust of any of the provisions of the income tax act and further the said trust cannot be made liable for withdrawal of exemption on the pretext that the trust property was given to any interested person as defined in section

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

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

assessment it cannot be held that there is any kind of breach and or violation by the said trust of any of the provisions of the income tax act and further the said trust cannot be made liable for withdrawal of exemption on the pretext that the trust property was given to any interested person as defined in section

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

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

assessment it cannot be held that there is any kind of breach and or violation by the said trust of any of the provisions of the income tax act and further the said trust cannot be made liable for withdrawal of exemption on the pretext that the trust property was given to any interested person as defined in section

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

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

assessment it cannot be held that there is any kind of breach and or violation by the said trust of any of the provisions of the income tax act and further the said trust cannot be made liable for withdrawal of exemption on the pretext that the trust property was given to any interested person as defined in section

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reopened on the ground that income had escaped assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice during the proceedings. This interpretation will no longer hold the field after the insertion of the Explanation 3 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. However, the Explanation

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reopened on the ground that income had escaped assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice during the proceedings. This interpretation will no longer hold the field after the insertion of the Explanation 3 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. However, the Explanation

ACC LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

reopened on the ground that income had escaped assessment on a certain issue, the Assessing Officer could not make an assessment or reassessment on another issue which came to his notice during the proceedings. This interpretation will no longer hold the field after the insertion of the Explanation 3 by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. However, the Explanation

KARAMSHI JETHABHAI SOMAIYA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. The assessee filed the return of income for assessment year 2009- 10 on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dated 23.03.2011 wherein the assessing officer has accepted the income returned by the assessee

POOJA HARDWARE PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 13 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13

reopen a case. He need not establish beyond doubt that there is escapement before establish beyond doubt that there is escapement before establish beyond doubt that there is escapement before issuing the notice. This can be done at the time of assessment but issuing the notice. This can be done at the time of assessment but issuing the notice. This