ADIT (E)I(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLIAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

section 11A of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee is a legal authority and cannot be considered as charitable trust

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUMBALLA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

charitable or religious purpose can be considered as an application of income if such capital gain is utilized for acquiring another capital asset to be held by the Trust. Explanation 2 to section 11A

ACIT (EXEMPTION) - 1(1), MUMBAI vs. JASLOK HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Jaslok Hospital & Income Tax (Exemption)-1(1), Research Centre, 5Th Floor, Room No. 506, 15, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 026. Mumbai (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan : Aaaaj0028Q

section 11 of the Income Tax Act provides for deduction capital expenditure incurred on assets acquired for the objects of the trust as application and does not specifically & expressly provide for double deduction on account of depreciation on the same very assets acquired from such capital expenditure, no deduction shall be allowed u1s.32 for the same or any other previous

UTTARPRATHA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

section 11 and 12 due to procedural lapse: ITA No. 3467 to 3469-/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19) Uttarpratha Trust On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of denying the exemption claimed

UTTARPRATHA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

section 11 and 12 due to procedural lapse: ITA No. 3467 to 3469-/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19) Uttarpratha Trust On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of denying the exemption claimed

UTTARPRATHA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

section 11 and 12 due to procedural lapse: ITA No. 3467 to 3469-/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17 to 2018-19) Uttarpratha Trust On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Learned Assessing Officer of denying the exemption claimed

ITO (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MATOSHRI ARTS & SPORTS TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhincome Tax Officer-(E)2(1) Matoshri Arts & Sports Trust Room No. 512, Piramal Meenatai Thakeracy Ground Vs. Chambers, Lal Baug Jogeshwri Vikhroli Link Road Parel, Mumbai 400012 Andhri (E), Mumbai 400093 Pan – Aaatm2559G Appellant Respondent

charitable trust, registered with the Charity Commissioner and also with the department u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act. It is noted that right from the date of inception itself, the assessee trust had been assessed accordingly up to A.Y. 2006-07. The main activity of the assessee trust are for the development of Arts & Sports and is still continuing

DCIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN MERCHANTS CHAMBERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dcit (Exemption)-I(I), M/S Indian Merchants Chambers, Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Imc Building, Imc Marg, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaati0047H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 139/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Imc Chambers Of Commerce & The Dcit (Exemption)-I(I), Industry Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Indian Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Merchants Chambers), Vs. Mumbai - 400012 Imc Building, Imc Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaati0047H (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Saroj Maniar, Ruchira Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/08/2018

section 11 of the act without appreciating the fact that the activities of the assessee do not fit into the character of eductioan as defined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sole Trustee Loka Shikshana trust and by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Bihar Institute of Mining and mine surveying. 3. Whether

M/S DBS REALTY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-31(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Dbs Realty, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Db House, A.K. Tax – 31(1), Vaidhya Marg, C-13, 1St Floor, Pratyakashkar Goregaon (East)- 400063 Vs. Bhavan, B.K.C., Pan: Aaffd8341L Bandra (East) - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) Revenue By : Smt. R.M. Madhvi (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/11/2021

11A of Village Chandivali, Mumbai. As noted by the AO, the area of the project/land is spread over 31.9 acres the said plot of land was purchased by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 44,21,57,150/- and handed over to SRA, as per the SRA scheme. As per the terms of agreement with SRA, the assessee

DCIT CC 8(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S JAINAM INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

11A, 5th Floor, Rockside Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Apartment, A Wing, Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAHFJ1230A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue by: Shri Rahul Raman (DR) Assessee by: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/02/2021 आदेश

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. DAWAT E HADIYAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

Section 11(1A) of the Act have been complied with. 5. The reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who was of the firm belief that the investment in the immovable properties, is not treated by the Trust as expenditure incurred on capital assets. Therefore, investment made in purchase of immovable properties is not sufficient