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

13. (1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof— (a) **** (b) **** (c) **** (d) in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during

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

9. The learned Counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act and also to the provisions of section 13(3) which read as under: - “Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in relation to— (i) any assets held by the trust or institution where such assets form part

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

9. The learned Counsel for the assessee also drew our attention to provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act and also to the provisions of section 13(3) which read as under: - “Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply in relation to— (i) any assets held by the trust or institution where such assets form part

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Charitable Trust 8, inner Para 11.5, Page 8 of the decision). Even otherwise, since the Appellant has not claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act, there is no question of violation of the provisions of Section 13 of the Act.” 9

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.

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

JAMSETJI TATA 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

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

R D TATA 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

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE 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

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

13. Both these tests are to be qualified for exemption u/s 11. First we will deal with the issue of application of income in conformity with the provisions of section 11 of the Act. For ready reference we quote section 11(1) as under:- XXXXXXXXX 6.1 As per section 11(1), the income derived from property held under trust wholly

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

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

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

13(3), then the A.O. should have taxed the defaulted amount at the maximum marginal rate without denying the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The appellant has relied on the following case laws in this regard: (i) Director of Income Tax Vs. Agrim Charan Foundation (2002) 253 ITR 0593 (ii) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ksrtc Employees

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

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

13(3), then the A.O. should have taxed the defaulted amount at the maximum marginal rate without denying the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The appellant has relied on the following case laws in this regard: (i) Director of Income Tax Vs. Agrim Charan Foundation (2002) 253 ITR 0593 (ii) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ksrtc Employees

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

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

13(3), then the A.O. should have taxed the defaulted amount at the maximum marginal rate without denying the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The appellant has relied on the following case laws in this regard: (i) Director of Income Tax Vs. Agrim Charan Foundation (2002) 253 ITR 0593 (ii) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ksrtc Employees