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

4. Regarding question no.(c) :-\n(c) On further appeal, the impugned order of the Tribunal while allowing the appeal\nheld that before invoking the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, the\nAssessing Officer has to record his non satisfaction with the suo moto disallowance\nof expenditure made towards earning exempt income by the respondent. This\nexercise

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

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year— (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; or (ii) any funds

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

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year— (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; or (ii) any funds

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

trusts override general computation rules. The appeals were decided against the appellant.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "Section 11", "Section 11(2)", "Section 11(4)", "Section 11(4A)", "Section 11(5)", "Section 14", "Section 24(a)", "Section 234B", "Section 234C", "Section 10A", "Section 12A", "Section 80G" ], "issues": "Whether a 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

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

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

4. The Provision of section 13ofI.T. Act, 1961 are as under: (Here whole of section is reproduced as it is and for the sake of brevity we have not reiterated it here). 5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot

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

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

4. The Provision of section 13ofI.T. Act, 1961 are as under: (Here whole of section is reproduced as it is and for the sake of brevity we have not reiterated it here). 5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot

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

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

4. The Provision of section 13ofI.T. Act, 1961 are as under: (Here whole of section is reproduced as it is and for the sake of brevity we have not reiterated it here). 5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot

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

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

4. The Provision of section 13ofI.T. Act, 1961 are as under: (Here whole of section is reproduced as it is and for the sake of brevity we have not reiterated it here). 5. In view of the provisions of section 13 of the IT Act, 1961, it is clear that exemption u/s 11 of the IT Act, 1961 cannot

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

11, 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Dear Sir, Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust is a public charitable trust created by the trust deed dated 23rd December 1974. The trust, on 1st August 1975, had filed the prescribed form no. 10A for registering itself as required under section 12A(a) of the Income

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

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

11, 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Dear Sir, Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust is a public charitable trust created by the trust deed dated 23rd December 1974. The trust, on 1st August 1975, had filed the prescribed form no. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 6 of 36 10A for registering itself as required under

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

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

11 of 36 (i) The Trust was constituted by trust deed dated 23.12.1974 and obtained registration as public 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

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.

11, 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Dear Sir, Page 7 of 47 Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust is a public charitable trust created by the trust deed dated 23rd December 1974. The trust, on 1st August 1975, had filed the prescribed form no. 10A for registering itself as required under section

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

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

11, 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Dear Sir, Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust is a public charitable trust created by the trust deed dated 23rd December 1974. The trust, on 1st August 1975, had filed the prescribed form no. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 6 of 36 10A for registering itself as required under

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

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

charitable institution under section 12A, is deprived of exemption under section 10(34). To this extent, the registration under section 12A acts as a disability for the assessee, and, by thus ensuring that the registration under section 12A continues to remain in existence, the assessee is denied exemption under section 10(34). Effectively thus, the continuance of registration under 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

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