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

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

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: tax Act, 1961: Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR 1. You have claimed donations given on a/c of CSR expenditure of Rs.24,98,000/ expenditure of Rs.24

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust (1994) 207 ITR 368 (Bom), CIT V/s. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 215 Taxman 154 and P.R.Kulkarni and Sons (HUF) V/s.Adll.CIT(2011) 135 TTJ (Bang) 630.1n the context of the above cited judgement it is pertinent to note that provisions of section 54 and 54F of the I.T.Act are similar and hence the above judgement

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(1

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

142(1) were issued by AO to the assessee, which were duly served on the assessee. 3.3 The AO observed during the course of assessment proceedings conducted u/s 143(2) read with Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act from the perusal of the statement of total income computed by assessee 2 | P a g e Page

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

charitable trusts and claimed same as deduction under section 80G - Whether Explanation 2 to section 37(1) which denies deduction for CSR ITA No.2959/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2020-21 9 A. K. Capital Services Limited expenses by way of business expenditure is applicable only to extent of computing 'business income' under Chapter IV-D and; it could not be extended or imported

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

SHREE ANIRUDDHA UPASANA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Cit (Exemption), Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, Vs. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Tps Iii, Khari Village, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Khar (West), Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaics 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Snehal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

charitable trust trust and for the year under consideration year under consideration filed return of income return of income on 26/10/2017 declaring Nil income 017 declaring Nil income, along with income and along with income and expenditure account, balance sheet expenditure account, balance sheet and audit report in and audit report in Form No. 10 Form

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable trust 4. and for the assessment year 2021-22, the assessee filed its return of income on 11.12.2021, declaring a total income of Rs.5,607/- The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 25.11.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13

NARIMAN POINT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable trust 4. and for the assessment year 2021-22, the assessee filed its return of income on 11.12.2021, declaring a total income of Rs.5,607/- The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 25.11.2022 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.13

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 29/03/2011 passed under section 143(3) of the Act assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.22196,46,82,210 after making certain additions/disallowances to the income declared by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order granted partial

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide order dated 29/03/2011 passed under section 143(3) of the Act assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.22196,46,82,210 after making certain additions/disallowances to the income declared by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) vide impugned order granted partial

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

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