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 be inferred from the rule making power conferred for regulating the procedure unless that is specifically provided for. It was pointed out that in the Constitution also where the Supreme Court was authorised with the approval of the President to make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court a specific power was given

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

charitable organization and accordingly. provisions of section 145 of the Act mandating following of cash or mercantile system of accounting is not applicable in the appellant's case, which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and Rules made thereunder. (iv) CIT(A) erred in observing that: a) there

ITO EXEMPTION 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

trust were diverted and used for the benefit of excluded person are covered within the provision of section 13(2)(b) and 13(2)(g)? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) is correct in ignoring the fact where the rents paid for premise and was diverted and used

M/S. ADITYA VIKRAM BIRLA MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (EXEM)-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

145 cannot have cannot have any application. It may also be observed that the any application. It may also be observed that the sub-section (4) of section 11 specifically lays down the mode section (4) of section 11 specifically lays down the mode section (4) of section 11 specifically lays down the mode of determination of the income

M/S. ADITYA VIKRAM BIRLA MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (EXEM)-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

145 cannot have cannot have any application. It may also be observed that the any application. It may also be observed that the sub-section (4) of section 11 specifically lays down the mode section (4) of section 11 specifically lays down the mode section (4) of section 11 specifically lays down the mode of determination of the income

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

Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself as a Local

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

Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself as a Local

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

Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself as a Local

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

Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself as a Local

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

Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself as a Local

ITO (E) 1(3), MUMBAI vs. FREE TRADE UNION, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh

ITO (E) 1(3), MUMBAI vs. FREE TRADE UNION, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh

M/S. FREE TRADE UNION MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-43 OR CIT VENTRAL 4, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh

M/S. FREE TRADE UNION MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-43 OR CIT CENTRAL 4, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh

ITO (E) 1(3), MUMBAI vs. FREE TRADE UNION, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh

ITO (E) 1(3), MUMBAI vs. FREE TRADE UNION, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh

M/S. FREE TRADE UNION MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh

M/S. FREE TRADE UNION MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-43 OR CIT CENTRAL 4, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh

ITO (E) 1(3), MUMBAI vs. FREE TRADE UNION, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh