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

Section (u/s.) 10(34)/10(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (n short the ‘Act’) in respect of dividend income earned of Rs.12,06,00,000/- and income from units amounting to Rs.32,504/- respectively. 5. Briefly the facts are, assessee is a Charitable Trust

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

Section (u/s.) 10(34)/10(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (n short the ‘Act’) in respect of dividend income earned of Rs.12,06,00,000/- and income from units amounting to Rs.32,504/- respectively. 5. Briefly the facts are, assessee is a Charitable Trust

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

Section (u/s.) 10(34)/10(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (n short the ‘Act’) in respect of dividend income earned of Rs.12,06,00,000/- and income from units amounting to Rs.32,504/- respectively. 5. Briefly the facts are, assessee is a Charitable Trust

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

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

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

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

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

charitable institution, irrespective of admissibility or even claim for exemption under section 11, the exemption under section 10(34) is inadmissible. That is how admittedly this provision has been construed by the revenue authorities, and that approach, coupled with the facts set out earlier, puts the assessee to a clear tax disadvantage. Effectively thus, as a result of the trust

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.

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

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

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

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

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

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

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

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

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

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under 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

Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2008. Undisputedly, the approval u/s 10(23C)(v) is accorded to those trusts which are wholly for public religious purposes and charitable purposes. We agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that this approval carries significant evidentiary value as it shows that the affairs of the assessee Trust had been verified

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

Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2008. Undisputedly, the approval u/s 10(23C)(v) is accorded to those trusts which are wholly for public religious purposes and charitable purposes. We agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that this approval carries significant evidentiary value as it shows that the affairs of the assessee Trust had been verified

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

Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2008. Undisputedly, the approval u/s 10(23C)(v) is accorded to those trusts which are wholly for public religious purposes and charitable purposes. We agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that this approval carries significant evidentiary value as it shows that the affairs of the assessee Trust had been verified

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

Section 10(23C)(v) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2008. Undisputedly, the approval u/s 10(23C)(v) is accorded to those trusts which are wholly for public religious purposes and charitable purposes. We agree with the Ld. CIT(A) that this approval carries significant evidentiary value as it shows that the affairs of the assessee Trust had been verified

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10