HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2 (3) (1), MUMBAI

10 (34) of the\nAct, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from\ntax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the\ntheory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as\nheld in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd. case. Therefore

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

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

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

10 of 36 Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust Bombay House, Homi Mody Street Mumbai 400 001 Sir, Sub: Show cause for cancellation u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner

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

10 of 35 Pr CIT-17, Mumbai 12. The assessee, alongwith five other similarly placed assessee trusts- namely R D Tata Trust, Tata Social Welfare Trust, Sarvjanik Seva Trust, Jameshdji Tata Trust and Tata Education Trust, challenged this show cause notice before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court but subsequently withdrew the writ petition with the liberty to raise

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

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

charitable trust in August 1975 under section 12A(a) of the ITA. In August 1975 it had filed prescribed Form 10A as required under section 12A(a) of the ITA. Vide communication dated 15.03.1976 the Trust was informed that the said application had been entered at Sr No TR/10925 in the Register of Applications under section

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.

charitable trust in August 1975 under section 12A(a) of the ITA. In August 1975 it had filed prescribed Form 10A as required under section 12A(a) of the ITA. Vide communication dated 15.03.1976 the Trust was informed that the said application had been entered at Sr No TR/10925 in the Register of Applications under section

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

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

charitable trust in August 1975 under section 12A(a) of the ITA. In August 1975 it had filed prescribed Form 10A as required under section 12A(a) of the ITA. Vide communication dated 15.03.1976 the Trust was informed that the said application had been entered at Sr No TR/10925 in the Register of Applications under section

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

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

charitable trust in August 1975 under section 12A(a) of the ITA. In August 1975 it had filed prescribed Form 10A as required under section 12A(a) of the ITA. Vide communication dated 15.03.1976 the Trust was informed that the said application had been entered at Sr No TR/10925 in the Register of Applications under section

DATTATRAY N SAWANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 2360/Mum/2013 is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

10-19). These details are duly recorded in deed of indenture dated 27-03-2006 whereby the said Zaverbai Purushottam Charitable Trust conveyed title of the said plot in favour of the assessee. Thus, the said plot was in-fact ITA 2360/Mum/2013 20 occupied by the Sh Dattatray Namdev Sawant, Karta of the assessee without authority of the lawful owner

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

10 under rule 17 and, therefore, the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion.”  Sales Tax Officer vs. KI Abraham (1967 AIR SC 1823) “The decision of the question at issue therefore depends on the construction of the phrase "in the prescribed manner" in s. 8(4) read with s. 13 of the Act. In our opinion, the phrase

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

10 under rule 17 and, therefore, the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion.”  Sales Tax Officer vs. KI Abraham (1967 AIR SC 1823) “The decision of the question at issue therefore depends on the construction of the phrase "in the prescribed manner" in s. 8(4) read with s. 13 of the Act. In our opinion, the phrase

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

In the result, both the appe

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

24-2-2004 made by the Director 2004 made by the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Annexed at page 32 which is based on irrelevant criteria tax (Exemptions), Annexed at page 32 which is based on irrelevant criteria tax (Exemptions), Annexed at page 32 which is based on irrelevant criteria is quashed and set aside with a direction to consider

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

24 A.Y.2010-11 Sayaji Ubakhin Memorial Trust (ITA No.5646/Mum/2011) and in case of ITO(E) Vs. Shri Sadguru Seva Trust (ITA No.3387/Mum/2015). Before going further, it is necessary to advert the case decided by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking (264 ITR 110) on record:- “Now coming to question No.3, the point

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Trust, 26(1), Room No. 249, 2nd Floor 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A Appellant by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal & Shri Atul Suraiya Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Trust, 26(1), Room No. 249, 2nd Floor 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A Appellant by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal & Shri Atul Suraiya Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Trust, 26(1), Room No. 249, 2nd Floor 2nd Floor, Bombay House, 24, Homi Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400001 (Appellant) : (Respondent) PAN NO. AAATT 9835A Appellant by : Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar Syal & Shri Atul Suraiya Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement