DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

charitable purposes concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified

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

In the result, both the appe

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

d) ****** 3. So far as the benefit 3. So far as the benefit of section 11(1)(a) is concerned, it can be extended only to the of section 11(1)(a) is concerned, it can be extended only to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India. However, if the extent to which such

DEDHIA MUSIC FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXMPTION), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes

DEDHIA MUSIC FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXMPTION), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

trust's registration as a wholly religious and charitable institution under Section 10(23C)(v).", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "115BBC", "147", "148", "143(1)", "143(3)", "11(1)(a)", "11(2)", "80G", "10(23C)(v)", "151", "13(1)(d

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1)(a) of the Act\nshould be allowed on gross receipts?\n(d) Whether the Ld CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the claim for\naccumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Act?\n\n4. The facts relating to the case are discussed in brief. The assessee is\nhaving a temple complex in the town of Shirdi consisting

RAAHAT HUMANITARIAN FOUDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Raahat Humanitarian Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), A 204, Zubaida Park, Behind Simla Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Park, Old Mumbai Pune Road, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Dr Kausa Mumbra, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Thane-400612. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaetr 9830 K Appellant Respondent

D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2024-25 Raahat Humanitarian Foundation, CIT (Exemptions), A 204, Zubaida Park, Behind Simla Room No. 601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Park, Old Mumbai Pune Road, MTNL TE Building Pedder Road, Dr Kausa Mumbra, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Thane-400612. Mumbai

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

1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof— (a) **** (b) **** (c) **** (d) in the case of a trust for charitable

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

1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof— (a) **** (b) **** (c) **** (d) in the case of a trust for charitable

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

charitable entity holding the shares received as corpus in compliance with the provisions of section 11(1)(d) read with section in compliance with the provisions of section 11(1)(d) read with section in compliance with the provisions of section 11(1)(d) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the same cannot be treated

PUNJAB KESARI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in above terms

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer (Exemption) – 2(2) Punjab Kesari Charitable Room No. 502, Trust, 5Th Floor, 242, Bhandar Galli, Vs. Piramal Chamber, L.J. Road, Mahim- 400016 Lalbaug- 400012, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp0040R Assessee By : Shri. S. M. Kapoor Revenue By : Ms Madhu Malati Ghosh (Cit-Dr)

11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— (a) Income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes

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

charitable trust enjoying exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act. As per the requirement of s. 11(1) of the IT Act, as it prevailed at that point of time, the assessee had to apply 75 per cent of its income for the objects and purposes of the trust and the assessee was permitted to accumulate or set apart

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

charitable trust enjoying exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act. As per the requirement of s. 11(1) of the IT Act, as it prevailed at that point of time, the assessee had to apply 75 per cent of its income for the objects and purposes of the trust and the assessee was permitted to accumulate or set apart

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

charitable trust enjoying exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act. As per the requirement of s. 11(1) of the IT Act, as it prevailed at that point of time, the assessee had to apply 75 per cent of its income for the objects and purposes of the trust and the assessee was permitted to accumulate or set apart

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

charitable trust enjoying exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act. As per the requirement of s. 11(1) of the IT Act, as it prevailed at that point of time, the assessee had to apply 75 per cent of its income for the objects and purposes of the trust and the assessee was permitted to accumulate or set apart

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

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

Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed- violation u/s 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to denial of exemption u/s 11 on total income of assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust

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

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

Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed- violation u/s 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to denial of exemption u/s 11 on total income of assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust

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

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

Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed- violation u/s 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to denial of exemption u/s 11 on total income of assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust

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

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

Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed- violation u/s 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to denial of exemption u/s 11 on total income of assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust