THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

charitable institutions, which meet other statutory requirements, cannot be declined. Once it is found that assessee trusts hold shares in a certain company, all that is required to be seen is whether these shares are held validly under section 11(5), read with Section13(1) (d). There was no legal embargo on the voting rights of the assessee trust

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

charitable institutions, which meet other statutory requirements, cannot be declined. Once it is found that assessee trusts hold shares in a certain company, all that is required to be seen is whether these shares are held validly under section 11(5), read with Section13(1) (d). There was no legal embargo on the voting rights of the assessee trust

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

144B of the Act.\n2. The revenue has taken the following grounds of appeals: -\n2.1 ITA 3175/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19)\n1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the d.CIT(A) was justified inallowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 &12 ofthe I,T, Act, 1961 to the assesses, ignoring the factthat the objects

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) -2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA nos

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

144B of the Act. 2. The revenue has taken the following grounds of appeals: - 2.1 ITA 3175/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2018-19) 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the d.CIT(A) was justified inallowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 &12 ofthe I,T, Act, 1961 to the assesses, ignoring the factthat the objects

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

charitable trusts to whom donations were given and therefore the AO om donations were given and therefore the AO om donations were given and therefore the AO was aware of the entire break was aware of the entire break-up of donations on which up of donations on which deduction under section 80G was claimed. Since none of the deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

144B of the Act. 8) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Assessee that the learned Assessing Officer had erred in completing the assessment u/s 144 read with section 147, without making any additions in respect of the issues

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN EDUCATION SOCIETY , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

144B of the Act. 8) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating the ground raised by the Assessee that the learned Assessing Officer had erred in completing the assessment u/s 144 read with section 147, without making any additions in respect of the issues

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

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

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year-\n1.\n(i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section

CHANDRAKANT NARAYAN PATKAR CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidarachandrakant Narayan Vs. Cit(Exemption), Room.No 322,3Rd Floor, Patkar Charitable Trust Income Tax Office, 1St Floor, Patkar Trust Pmt Building, Office Buillding, Sankar Seth Road, Station Road, Pune-411037, Near Canara Bank, Maharashtra. Dombivli (E), Thane-421201. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. Aaatt2801N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and has issued revision notice u/sec 263 of the Act considering the facts 3 Chandrakant Narayan Patkar Charitable Trust

THE M.K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable activities in the field of education and has thus accordingly claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. For assessment year 2015-16, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act computed total income of assessee at Rs. 4,19,250/- after disallowing claim of depreciation. 8. Subsequently, the CIT vide

THE M.K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable activities in the field of education and has thus accordingly claimed exemption under section 11 of the Act. 7. For assessment year 2015-16, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.12.2017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act computed total income of assessee at Rs. 4,19,250/- after disallowing claim of depreciation. 8. Subsequently, the CIT vide

SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross\nappeal filed by the assessee is allowed

charitable or religious institution,\nany income thereof, if for any period during the previous\nyear-\n1.\n(i)\nany funds of the trust or institution are\ninvested or deposited after the 28th day of\nFebruary, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more\nof the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5)\nof section 11; or\n(ii)\nany

ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

charitable trust for which the assessee has claimed 50% of\nthe total donation paid as deduction u/s.80G of the Act. Prior to the Finance\n(No.2) Act, 2014, the said expenditure was claimed as 'business expenditure'\nu/s.37(1) of the Act where after the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1)\nof the Act, the CSR expenses referred

ACIT-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE AMC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailaditya Birla Sun Life Amc Ltd., Tower 1, Jupiter Mill Compound, 17Th Floor, One World Center, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400013 Pan : Aaacb6134D V/S

144B of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that under section 80G of the Act, the sum paid needs to be a donation for the purpose of being eligible for deduction under the said section. It was further held that the amount paid by the assessee should be voluntary to become eligible for deduction under

M/S. SONATA INFORMATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIRCLE 3(4), MUMBAI

Accordingly, disallowance of INR made by the Assessing Officer is deleted and Ground No.1 & 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act, vide Assessment Order, dated 29/09/2022, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction of INR.67,15,972/- claimed by the Assessee under Section 80G of the Act observing as under: “4.4.3. Claim of the assessee is not acceptable. In the case under consideration, the amount has not been paid by the Assessee voluntarily to become eligible for entity

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 as above Give credit for prepaid taxes, Charge interest u/s 234A. 234B. 234C, 234D and u/s 244A Issue demand notice & Challan accordingly.” 8. Accordingly the assessee withdrew the appeal filed before the Tribunal against the order passed under section 263 for reason that the AO while passing order under section 144 r.w.s

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

144B of the Act without appreciating that the same are beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 153(1) r.w.s. 153(4) of the Act; 2. Failed to appreciate that the due date for completion of the assessment proceedings for AY 2019-20 as per section 153(1) r.w.s. 153(4) of the Act is 31 March 2022 and thereby

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -EXEMPTION -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA\nNo

charitable activities, hence\nnot entitled for benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act\", are not sustainable, hence set aside. Ground\nNo. 2 is determined in favour of the assessee.\"\n5. The Id. DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue\nauthorities. The Ld. DR was unable to provide any contrary judgment or bring\nforth