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

142(1) of the Act was issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) -2(1), Mumbai [in short ‘AO’]. The AO noted that, during the year the assessee Trust had received aggregate donations of Rs.228.25 crores, out of which Rs.159.12 crores was by way of hundi collections (anonymous donations). The AO accordingly required the assessee vide order sheet

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

142(1) of the Act was issued by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) -2(1), Mumbai [in short ‘AO’]. The AO noted that, during the year the assessee Trust had received aggregate donations of Rs.228.25 crores, out of which Rs.159.12 crores was by way of hundi collections (anonymous donations). The AO accordingly required the assessee vide order sheet

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)

Charitable Trust; A.Y. 15-16 Balance Sheet and Audit Report in form no. 10B declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The case was selected for compulsory manual scrutiny and notice Under Section 143(2) was issued on 21st September, 2016, was duly served. Subsequently, notice Under Section 142

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

142(1) of the Act are issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended and submitted the details as called for. 3. During Assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer analysed the objects of the assessee as given in the memorandum and the definition of charitable purpose in the section

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

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

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

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

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

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

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

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

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

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

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

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

142(1) of the Act. Declining the submissions raised by the assessee trust and by following the earlier assessment order for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18, the AO proceeded to hold that the assessee’s case is hit by proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and thereby rejected the claim of exemption under section

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

Charitable Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) the A.O under Sec. 142(1), dated 04.01.2017 wherein specific queries as regards donations received, and also, the expenses incurred were raised by him. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that in compliance to the aforesaid query letter the assessee had furnished the requisite details vide its letter dated

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Charitable Trust for commission. The assessment of entry providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the accommodation transaction was taxed. Few do accommodation transaction was taxed. Few donors covered u/s nors covered u/s Estate of Vandravan P Shah

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

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

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

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

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

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

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

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

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

142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) issued and served on the assessee. In response Ld. AR of the assessee attended from time to time and filed the information as called for. 4. The brief background of the assessee company is, Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority primarily known as MMRDA is a local authority created

ITO (E)-II(1), MUMBAI vs. KALYANI CARTIABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Assessment Year :2010-11 Ito (E)-Ii(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kalyani Charitable Trust, C/O. Ravi Communication, Jj Hospital Campus, Byculla, Mumbai- 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aaatk3179R Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 11, 12 and 13, is also alive in this context. The appellant has relied on the decision in the case of DIT Vs. Keshav Social & Charitable Foundation (2005) 278 ITR (Del) where it was held that - Charitable trust - Exemption u/s 11 - Unverified donations - Assessee, a charitable institution, made disclosure of donations alongwith list of donors - Admittedly, more than

THE PRANSUKHLAL MAFATLAL HINDU SWIMMING BATH & BOAT CLUB TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

charitable trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 in the year 1953 and also registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The main object of the assessee trust is promotion of swimming and other allied sports on a no profit basis. The assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year