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

13\nITA No. 1555, 1573, 2258, 2259 & 2260 Mum 2025\nΑ.Υ. 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22\nHDFC Bank Limited, Mumbai\ndisallowance made by the assessee is not found to be satisfactory by the\nAO having regard to the accounts of the assessee. In the absence of\nrecording the aforesaid fact of non- satisfaction in terms of Section\n14A

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

trust was notified as an institution established for charitable purposes under section 10(23C)(iv), and this notification has been renewed from time to time. The conditions precedent for grant of notification under section 10(23C) were similar to section 13

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

trust was notified as an institution established for charitable purposes under section 10(23C)(iv), and this notification has been renewed from time to time. The conditions precedent for grant of notification under section 10(23C) were similar to section 13

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

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

10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that income derived from the property held under trust

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

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

10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that income derived from the property held under trust

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

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

10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that income derived from the property held under trust

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

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

10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that income derived from the property held under trust

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.

10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that income derived from the property held under trust

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

10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that income derived from the property held under trust

DCIT (E)- 2(1), MUMBAI vs. J.R.D TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

10(38) of the Act respectively and also cannot be brought to tax by applying the provisions of section 11 and 13 of the Act. But according to AO, section 13(1)(d) of the Act is an exception, wherein the exemption under section 11 is not applicable to certain cases prescribed in the section. He noted that the provisions

J.R.D. TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (NOW ASSSESSED BY THE DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

10(38) of the Act respectively and also cannot be brought to tax by applying the provisions of section 11 and 13 of the Act. But according to AO, section 13(1)(d) of the Act is an exception, wherein the exemption under section 11 is not applicable to certain cases prescribed in the section. He noted that the provisions

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

trust for charitable purposes, violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act etc. He was of the opinion that the income should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate and that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s.10(34),10

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

trust for charitable purposes,violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act etc.He was of the opinion that the income should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate and that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s.10(34),10

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

13 nor under section 10(22). In this regard, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that once an educational institution is entitled to the benefit under section 10(22) then it is not necessary to consider claim of the assessee under section 11. The Hon'ble Madras High Court referred to the CBDT Circular No. 712, dated

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

Section 9, any trust whose purpose was exclusively for religious teaching or worship, would not qualify as a public trust for charitable purposes. According to Ld. DR, the fact that the assessee Trust was earlier registered under this Act substantiated the AO’s case that it existed solely for charitable purposes. The Ld. DR also placed before us the Suit

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

Section 9, any trust whose purpose was exclusively for religious teaching or worship, would not qualify as a public trust for charitable purposes. According to Ld. DR, the fact that the assessee Trust was earlier registered under this Act substantiated the AO’s case that it existed solely for charitable purposes. The Ld. DR also placed before us the Suit

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

Section 9, any trust whose purpose was exclusively for religious teaching or worship, would not qualify as a public trust for charitable purposes. According to Ld. DR, the fact that the assessee Trust was earlier registered under this Act substantiated the AO’s case that it existed solely for charitable purposes. The Ld. DR also placed before us the Suit

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

Section 9, any trust whose purpose was exclusively for religious teaching or worship, would not qualify as a public trust for charitable purposes. According to Ld. DR, the fact that the assessee Trust was earlier registered under this Act substantiated the AO’s case that it existed solely for charitable purposes. The Ld. DR also placed before us the Suit

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

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

Section 13(2) are not applicable to the assessee. In this regard reliance is place on the following case law: George Educational, Medical and Charitable Society Vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax (2002) 80 ITD 619 (Coch) Charitable Trust-Exemption under s. 11- Bar of s. 13(1)(c)- Assessee society and using the residential house of its chairman