DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

trust was 'the advancement of any other of general public utility'. Therefore, the only issue for decision is that whether the activities of the assessee constitute the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

trust was 'the advancement of any other of general public utility'. Therefore, the only issue for decision is that whether the activities of the assessee constitute the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess

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)

127 taxmann.com Punjab Kesari Charitable Trust; A.Y. 15-16 582 (Mumbai–Trib) order dated 30th March, 2021 wherein it is held; “7.1 It would be relevant to refer to section 2

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

2). In response, the assessee trust has made submission on 22.08.2024. After a careful perusal of the submission, it is seen from the trust deed/MOA that as per the point no. III(A)(1), the assessee intends to apply funds outside India. This is in violation of section 11 of the Income tax Act. In view of this, a show

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

2). In response, the assessee trust has made submission on 22.08.2024. After a careful perusal of the submission, it is seen from the trust deed/MOA that as per the point no. III(A)(1), the assessee intends to apply funds outside India. This is in violation of section 11 of the Income tax Act. In view of this, a show

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

127 CTR (St) 2] wherein it is also explained that if an educational institution is entitled to exemption under section 10(22) then benefit conferred under this section cannot be denied on the ground of violation under section 11(5). In this regard, we refer to following portion from that judgment as under: - 17 Oberoi Foundation "Aggrieved by the said

M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1689 /Mum/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Alimaan Charitable Commissioner Of Income Trust, 206, Rewa Chambers, Vs. Tax (Exemptions),R. No. New Marine Lines, 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mumbai – 400 020 Chambers, Lal Baug,Parel,Mumbai – 400 012 Pan No. Aaata2536P (Assessee ) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Firojandhyaruzina, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 28/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2021

section (2) of Sec. 33 & 34 and Rule 19 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Our attention was also drawn by the ld. A.R to the application of its income by the assessee trust during the year under consideration. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that during the year under consideration no corpus donation was received

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

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. CIT to exercise

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

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. CIT to exercise

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 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

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. CIT to exercise

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

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. CIT to exercise