DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

124 outsiders business and rendering mostly. No separate books of conferences / seminars services to trade, commerce accounts maintained. throughout the year of parties. Hit by first proviso to section 2(15). 4. Compensation received 9,77,850 At the most as General Public Not incidental as gallery was for providing art persons utility. It is in the nature of used

SHREE SAISEWA CHARITABLE SANSTHA,ANDHERI WEST vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

124(1)(ac)[iv) Le. where registration of the trust or institution has become inoperative due to the first proviso to sub-section (7) of section 11 and not for regularisation of provisional registration. Hence this Application is hereby rejected" However, all the required details were already submitted along with the application and also again forward all the details

SHREE SAISEWA CHARITABLE SANSTHA,ANDHERI (W) vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, CUMBALLA HILL

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

124(1)(ac)[iv) Le. where registration of the trust or institution has become inoperative due to the first proviso to sub-section (7) of section 11 and not for regularisation of provisional registration. Hence this Application is hereby rejected" However, all the required details were already submitted along with the application and also again forward all the details

TRUSTEES OF SIR RATAN TATA BUILDING C. J. COLONY TARDEO ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that

THE JRD & THELMA J TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9EXEMPTIONS0, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that

THE JRD TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMP), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVELOPEMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that

THE J.N.TATA ENDOWMENT FOR THE HIGHER DEUCATION OF INDIANS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EMPTIONS) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that

THE SOCI\ETY FOR THE REHABILITION OF CRIPPLED CHILDREN ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). Identical issues are involved in all these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that

SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that the order of the ld. PCIT has been passed during Covid

SIR RATAN TATA PARSI MATHERAN CONVALESCENT HOME,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that the order of the ld. PCIT has been passed during Covid

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the limited terms indicated above, and subject to the observations as above

1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act). are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing of appeal by the assessee by three days. We find that the order of the ld. PCIT has been passed during Covid

SNEHALAYA CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD THANE , THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit (Exemption).

Charitable Trust working for specially abled children. It undertakes workshops for the rehabilitation of speciallyabled children and also works for giving them meaningful employment. The Trust is 19 years old Trust which got registered with the charity commissioner under Maharashtra Public Trust Act on 20th of Feb. 2006. 3. It was submitted that the Trust had applied for the registration

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, SPL. RG.32, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt

THE DY CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) legal requirements as envisaged u/s. 120(1), 120(2) and 120(4)(b) of the I.T. Act. were satisfied of the I.T. Act. were satisfied and jurisdiction was conferred on and jurisdiction was conferred on the Addl./Jt