THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

charitable institutions, which meet other statutory requirements, cannot be declined. Once it is found that assessee trusts hold shares in a certain company, all that is required to be seen is whether these shares are held validly under section 11(5), read with Section13(1) (d). There was no legal embargo on the voting rights of the assessee trust

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

charitable institutions, which meet other statutory requirements, cannot be declined. Once it is found that assessee trusts hold shares in a certain company, all that is required to be seen is whether these shares are held validly under section 11(5), read with Section13(1) (d). There was no legal embargo on the voting rights of the assessee trust

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

charitable nature. The issue was never adjudicated by the ld.AO in the assessment order. So, the expenses of “Goa Fest” is directed to further verification and setting aside the assessment order as erroneous & prejudicial to the revenue. Being aggrievedon revision order U/s 263 the assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld. AR argued and filed written submission which

M/S. RDC VENTURES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-27, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

charitable and religious trust. The same is distinguishable from the case of the assessee in respect of jurisdiction of territorial PCIT for making revision of assessment u/s 263

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

263 of the IT Act, 1961 was of the view that the aforesaid computation of capital gains done by the AO in the assessment proceedings in the order passed u/s 147 of the Act dated 30- 12-2008 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the DIT(E) issued a show cause notice dated

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

revised the assessment and was of the opinion that this expenditure was prohibited and was not applied for purpose of trust in India and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s 11. The main object of the trust was to advance, propagate, increase and promotion of Indian classical and Folk arts and Indian music etc. The trust was invited

BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYESS MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3249/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Bank Of India Retired Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Employees Medical Tax (Exemptions), V. Assistance Scheme, Piramal Chambers, Star House, C-5, 6 Th Floor, Lalbaug, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai – 400 012. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabtb3373J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

revision of assessment u/s 263 of the act. 2. The assessment of the above case was completed u/s 143(3) on 12.12.2013 determining a total income of Rs. NIL. 1. During the assessment proceedings, the appellant had given full details regarding the Corpus Donation received of Rs.1,90,00,000/-. It was explained that the said amount

JEEVAN DEEP TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

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

charitable trust. Accordingly, it has been held that the payment made one trust to another trust as donation does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in section 13(3) of the Act. 8 Jeevan Deep Trust We noticed that the assessee has submitted above said contentions before the AO in the assessment proceedings and the same has been

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

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

Revision by commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue - Assessee Charitable Trust ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 running large number of Institutions claimed exemption u/s. 11- For A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02, assessee filed 'Nil' return of income on 31-10-2001 claiming exemption of income-AO held that amount given

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

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

Revision by commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue - Assessee Charitable Trust ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 running large number of Institutions claimed exemption u/s. 11- For A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02, assessee filed 'Nil' return of income on 31-10-2001 claiming exemption of income-AO held that amount given

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

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

Revision by commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue - Assessee Charitable Trust ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 running large number of Institutions claimed exemption u/s. 11- For A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02, assessee filed 'Nil' return of income on 31-10-2001 claiming exemption of income-AO held that amount given

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

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

Revision by commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue - Assessee Charitable Trust ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 running large number of Institutions claimed exemption u/s. 11- For A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02, assessee filed 'Nil' return of income on 31-10-2001 claiming exemption of income-AO held that amount given

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

Charitable Trust or Trust of any other kind. 3 Slum Rehabilitation Authority On a proper interpretation of the intention behind the enactment of the provision of sections 11, 12,12A, 12AA and 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961, it appears that the tax incentive-proposed in the scheme of exemption from charge of income tax is more applicable

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

revised the assessment and was of the opinion that this expenditure was prohibited and was not applied for purpose of trust in India and, therefore, not eligible for exemption u/s 11. The main object of the trust was to advance, propagate, increase and promotion of Indian classical and Folk arts and Indian music etc. The trust was invited

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

charitable trust for which the assessee has claimed 50% of the total\ndonation paid as deduction u/s.800 of the Act. Prior to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014,\nthe said expenditure was claimed as ‘business expenditure' u/s.37(1) of the Act where\nafter the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses\nreferred

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Mumbai Metropolitan Vs. Director Of Income Tax Region Development (Exemptions), Mumbai Authority, Plot No. C-14 & 15, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm7106R Appellant) .. Respondent)

revised u/s. 263 of the Act. 1.3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. DIT(E) ought to have held that the proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable on the facts of the present case. 1.4 The Appellant prays that order passed u/s. 263 of the Act to be struck

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc. (CSR) - Assessment year 2018-19 - Assessee contributed certain sum as part of CSR towards various charitable trusts and claimed same as deduction under section 80G - Whether Explanation 2 to section 37(1) which denies deduction for CSR ITA No.2959/Mum/2025

VIGHNAHARATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

charitable trust. Assessee originally filed its return of income on 24/4/2012. Assessee filed its return of income in ITR – 7. In the return of income assessee disclosed the deficit of ₹ 53,022,672/– accompanied by income and expenditure account, balance sheet and audit report in form number 10 B of the act. This return of income filed by the assessee

SHEKHAR S. DADARKAR,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

charitable trust, Prabodhan Goregaon amounting to Rs.22,50,000/-, it is stated that the appellant had submitted before the AO vide letter dated 06.12.2010, the copy of the agreement with the trust and the fact that no TDS has been made. Since the income of the trust is not chargeable to tax, no TDS is required to be made