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

trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11 (5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. it is 5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would

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

11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The\nonly morn question to be decided here is whether the expenditure towards CSR activities are\nan allowable deduction us 80G of the Act. The CSR expenses are governed by section 135 of\nthe Companies Act, 2013, Schedule VII of the Act and Companies (CSR) Policy

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

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

UMMEED FOUNDATION,AL SHAKREEN APT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PMT BUILDING COMMERCIAL COMPLEX

In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2023-24 Ummeed Foundation, Cit(E), Pune, Room No. 204, A1 Shakreen Apt, 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Vs. Waf Acomplex Chs, H-104, Office, Pmt Building Sharifa Road, Amrut Nagar, City Commercial Complex, Shankar Convent High School, Thane, Sheth Road, Swargate, Kausa B.O., Maharashtra-400612. Pune-411037. Pan No. Aaatu 4914 H Appellant Respondent

11-2013. The respondent is at liberty to consider the amended respondent is at liberty to consider the amended objectives of the petitioner Trust. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and allowed and the finding rendered by the respondent that the the finding rendered by the respondent that the petitioner's application cannot be considered as the same

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 trust or religious institution can be either in money or in kind such as immovable property, institution can be either in money or in kind such as immovable property, institution can be either in money or in kind such as immovable property, movable property or shares etc. Thus, the provisions of section 11(5

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

5% of their income towards religious purpose. According to him, the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ set out in Explanation (3), as explained by him in the foregoing, continued to hold ground post insertion of Section 80G(5B) of the Act. 13 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). 11

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

5% of their income towards religious purpose. According to him, the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ set out in Explanation (3), as explained by him in the foregoing, continued to hold ground post insertion of Section 80G(5B) of the Act. 13 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). 11

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

5% of their income towards religious purpose. According to him, the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ set out in Explanation (3), as explained by him in the foregoing, continued to hold ground post insertion of Section 80G(5B) of the Act. 13 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). 11

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

5% of their income towards religious purpose. According to him, the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ set out in Explanation (3), as explained by him in the foregoing, continued to hold ground post insertion of Section 80G(5B) of the Act. 13 A.Ys. 2015-16, 2017-18, 2018-19 Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi). 11

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

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

charitable Trust 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-A.O. held that amount given to M/s ‘A’ Ltd. as advance infringes provision of section 11(5

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

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

charitable Trust 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-A.O. held that amount given to M/s ‘A’ Ltd. as advance infringes provision of section 11(5

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

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

charitable Trust 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-A.O. held that amount given to M/s ‘A’ Ltd. as advance infringes provision of section 11(5

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

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

charitable Trust 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-A.O. held that amount given to M/s ‘A’ Ltd. as advance infringes provision of section 11(5

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(5) of the ITA. The PCIT, thus, erred in allowing registration under section 12A of the ITA for the period when the Appellant was non-compliant with provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the ITA and has cancelled registration under section 12A of the ITA from a date when there was no such violation. g) The PCIT erred

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

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

11 (5) of the ITA. The PCIT, thus, erred in allowing registration under section 12A of the ITA for the period when the Appellant was non-compliant with provisions of section 13(l)(d) of the ITA and has cancelled registration under section 12A of the ITA from a date when there was no such violation. g) The PCIT erred

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

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 Tax Act. We were informed by the communication dated 15th March 1976 that the said application has been entered at Serial No. TR/10925

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

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

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 Tax Act. We were informed by the communication dated 15th March 1976 that the said application has been entered at Serial No. TR/10925