CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

Charitable Trust placed on the table of the legislature was not enough, in the absence of a wider power in the Section, to enable the State Government to make retrospective rules. The whole purpose of laying on the table of the legislature the rules framed by the State Government is different and the effect of any one of the three

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11 (5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. it is 5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

charitable activity through advancement of an object of general public utility and therefore, has concluded that the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee and has further held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 11 u/ the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing officer

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

charitable activity through advancement of an object of general public utility and therefore, has concluded that the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee and has further held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 11 u/ the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing officer

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

charitable activity through advancement of an object of general public utility and therefore, has concluded that the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee and has further held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 11 u/ the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing officer

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

charitable activity through advancement of an object of general public utility and therefore, has concluded that the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee and has further held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 11 u/ the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing officer

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

charitable activity through advancement of an object of general public utility and therefore, has concluded that the Proviso to section 2(15) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee and has further held that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section 11 u/ the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing officer

NANDALAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) - II (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Nandlal Tolani Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Charitable Trust Tax (Exem.)Ii(2), Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar R.P.Goenka Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaatn0043Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

trust or institution, subject to its application for charitable purposes, for which it has been in fact formed (per its Constituting charter) is exempt from tax under Chapter III (ss.10 to 138) of the Act The said income does not form part of the total income of the entity to which it arises or accrues or is received

MATUNGA GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11(5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. It is therefore not only inexplicable, but absurd as to why the Assessing Officer has taken the stand that interest received from deposits in banks falls foul of the proviso to 21 Matunga Gymkhana Section

DDIT (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11(5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. It is therefore not only inexplicable, but absurd as to why the Assessing Officer has taken the stand that interest received from deposits in banks falls foul of the proviso to 21 Matunga Gymkhana Section

DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11(5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. It is therefore not only inexplicable, but absurd as to why the Assessing Officer has taken the stand that interest received from deposits in banks falls foul of the proviso to 21 Matunga Gymkhana Section

CREDIT GURANTEE FUND TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklacredit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro & Small Enterprises, 7Th Floor, Sme Development Centre, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan:Aaatc 2613D ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Pirmal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 .... Respondent

charitable, but said nature is vitiated by the fact that it was collecting charges for providing services to small scale industries and micro enterprises and it is hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 5.5 Per contra, the Ld. Representative for the assessee vehemently pointed out that the implication of the proviso to section

M/S FEDERATION OF FREIGHT FORWARDERS ASSOCIATIONS IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed and additions amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Federation Of Freight Forwarders Associations, 311/313, Mahinder Chambers, W.T. Patil Marg, Opp. Dukes Factory, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aaatf0039J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(3), Piramal Chambers 4Th Floor, Dr. S.S. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

138 (Delhi - Trib.), IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'G' Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers v. Income-tax Officer, (Exemption), Trust Ward-II, Delhi “Section 2(15), read with section 11, of the Income-tax Act,1961 - Charitable

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dimissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Nandlal Tolani Charitable Vs Ito (E)-2(1), Mumbai Trust, 10-A, Bhkhtawar, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan : Aaatn0043Q Appellant Respondednt

trust or institution, subject to its application for charitable purposes, for which it has been in fact formed (per its Constituting charter) is exempt from tax under Chapter III (ss.10 to 138) of the Act The said income does not form part of the total income of the entity to which it arises or accrues or is received

ALL INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC TRADE AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita No. 1387/Mum/2020 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita No. 1705/Mum/2019 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2014-15) All India Photographic Trade & The Income Tax Officer(E) Industry Association Ward 1(1), Mumbai 1 S T C-3/6, Taj Building, 210, फनाभ/ Floor, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaaa0042K अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Kirit Sanghvi, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2021

section 2(15) of the Act is extracted as under:- “2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,— ………………………………….. …………………… (15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest, and the advancement of any other object

ITO (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer Matunga Gymkhana, (Exemptions)-2(1), 263/A Lakhamsey Napoo Road, 512, 5Th Floor, Matunga, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai - 400019 Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aaatm1035F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2019

trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11(5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. It is therefore not only inexplicable, but absurd as to why the Assessing Officer has taken the stand that interest received from deposits in banks falls foul of the proviso to Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities