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

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

143(2) and 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

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

143(2) and 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

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

143(2) and 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

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

143(2) and 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

SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

143(1) of the Act and therefore, the decisions relied upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. upon by the assessee were not applicable over the facts of the case. Shree Pushkar Foundation Shree Pu 4 4. We have heard rival

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

ii) of the proviso with which we are not concerned. In the present case, the main object of the assessee club as the present case, the main object of the assessee club as noted above is noted above is to provide golf facilities to the members for promotion of the sport. The to provide golf facilities to the members

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.

ii) In March 2015, referring to section 12AA(4) of the ITA inserted with effect from 1 October 2014 by Finance Act, 2014 the Trust submitted to the CIT(E) that some of its activities are not in conformity with the provisions of section 13(1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which

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

ii) In March 2015, referring to section 12AA(4) of the ITA inserted with effect from 1 October 2014 by Finance Act, 2014 the Trust submitted to the CIT(E) that some of its activities are not in conformity with the provisions of section 13(1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which

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

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

ii) In March 2015, referring to section 12AA(4) of the ITA inserted with effect from 1 October 2014 by Finance Act, 2014 the Trust submitted to the CIT(E) that some of its activities are not in conformity with the provisions of section 13(1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which

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

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

ii) In March 2015, referring to section 12AA(4) of the ITA inserted with effect from 1 October 2014 by Finance Act, 2014 the Trust submitted to the CIT(E) that some of its activities are not in conformity with the provisions of section 13(1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which

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

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

ii) In March 2015, referring to section 12AA(4) of the ITA inserted with effect from 1 October 2014 by Finance Act, 2014 the Trust submitted to the CIT(E) that some of its activities are not in conformity with the provisions of section 13(1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which

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

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

ii) In March 2015, referring to section 12AA(4) of the ITA inserted with effect from 1 October 2014 by Finance Act, 2014 the Trust submitted to the CIT(E) that some of its activities are not in conformity with the provisions of section 13(1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which

M/S MANTHAN INC ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Manthan Inc, Acit Cir. 19(2), Rani Bldg., V.P. Road, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm 6011 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Dilip Diwan, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

143(3) of the Act. M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 6.1 The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer subsequently received information from received information from the Investigation Wing the Investigation Wingof the Income-tax Department tax Department that M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry of Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry o Navjeevan

M/S MANTHAN INC,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 19(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Manthan Inc, Acit Cir. 19(2), Rani Bldg., V.P. Road, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm 6011 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Dilip Diwan, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

143(3) of the Act. M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 6.1 The Assessing Officer Assessing Officer subsequently received information from received information from the Investigation Wing the Investigation Wingof the Income-tax Department tax Department that M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry of Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry o Navjeevan

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

ii) provides that income applied to such purposes outside India is exempt in the case of trust created before 1-4-1952 subject to the approval of the Board. This underlines the principle that Governments do not forego their revenue in favour of charges paid outside their countries and hence the relevant consideration is whether the situs of the application

DEDHIA MUSIC FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

1) of section 12AA, as the case may be, and subsequently,— (a) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has noticed occurrence of one or more specified violations during any previous year; or (b) the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has received a reference from the Assessing Officer under the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143 for any previous year