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

trust was of a charitable organisation and therefore the benefit of exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) was not available to the assessee. With these findings, the AO taxed anonymous donations to the extent of Rs. 147

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

trust was of a charitable organisation and therefore the benefit of exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) was not available to the assessee. With these findings, the AO taxed anonymous donations to the extent of Rs. 147

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

trust was of a charitable organisation and therefore the benefit of exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) was not available to the assessee. With these findings, the AO taxed anonymous donations to the extent of Rs. 147

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

trust was of a charitable organisation and therefore the benefit of exclusion set out in Section 115BBC(2)(b) was not available to the assessee. With these findings, the AO taxed anonymous donations to the extent of Rs. 147

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

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

charitable so as to enable the trustees or the Trust to qualify for such exemption. As against such mandate being in the preamble of the Trust Deed, the trustees of the assessee Trust have blatantly and consistently violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and has made investments which are not in accordance with the objects of the Trust

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

charitable so as to enable the trustees or the Trust to qualify for such exemption. As against such mandate being in the preamble of the Trust Deed, the trustees of the assessee Trust have blatantly and consistently violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and has made investments which are not in accordance with the objects of the Trust

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.

charitable so as to enable the trustees or the Trust to qualify for such exemption. As against such mandate being in the preamble of the Trust Deed, the trustees of the assessee Trust have blatantly and consistently violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and has made investments which are not in accordance with the objects of the Trust

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

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

charitable so as to enable the trustees or the Trust to qualify for such exemption. As against such mandate being in the preamble of the Trust Deed, the trustees of the assessee Trust have blatantly and consistently violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and has made investments which are not in accordance with the objects of the Trust

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

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

charitable so as to enable the trustees or the Trust to qualify for such exemption. As against such mandate being in the preamble of the Trust Deed, the trustees of the assessee Trust have blatantly and consistently violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and has made investments which are not in accordance with the objects of the Trust

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

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

charitable so as to enable the trustees or the Trust to qualify for such exemption. As against such mandate being in the preamble of the Trust Deed, the trustees of the assessee Trust have blatantly and consistently violated the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and has made investments which are not in accordance with the objects of the Trust

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

trust's registration as a wholly religious and charitable institution under Section 10(23C)(v).", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "115BBC", "147

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

charitable trust, has not offered the anonymous donations for\ntax u/s 115BBC, I have reasons to believe that the income of the assessee\nhas escaped assessment for AY. 2013-14 within the meaning of section 147

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 but the assessee failed to substantiate assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the donation. Con the genuineness of the donation. Consequently, the Assessing sequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 35AC and Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 35AC and Officer disallowed the claim of deduction under section 35AC and completed

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

147 of the Act dated 30- 12-2008 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the DIT(E) issued a show cause notice dated 21-02-2011 proposing to recompute the capital gains. According to the DIT(E) when a charitable trust derives capital gain on sale of its capital asset then 5 Mehta Charity Trust

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

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

147 of the Act was taken. 05. It was found during the F.Y. 2009-10 i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 that properties of the assessee were used by the specified persons. It was found that M/s Ideen Furniture Pvt. Ltd had occupied 8th i. floor of the assessee‟s trust building at Bandra Reclamation without any payment. The above

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

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

147 of the Act was taken. 05. It was found during the F.Y. 2009-10 i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 that properties of the assessee were used by the specified persons. It was found that M/s Ideen Furniture Pvt. Ltd had occupied 8th i. floor of the assessee‟s trust building at Bandra Reclamation without any payment. The above

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

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

147 of the Act was taken. 05. It was found during the F.Y. 2009-10 i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 that properties of the assessee were used by the specified persons. It was found that M/s Ideen Furniture Pvt. Ltd had occupied 8th i. floor of the assessee‟s trust building at Bandra Reclamation without any payment. The above

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

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

147 of the Act was taken. 05. It was found during the F.Y. 2009-10 i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 that properties of the assessee were used by the specified persons. It was found that M/s Ideen Furniture Pvt. Ltd had occupied 8th i. floor of the assessee‟s trust building at Bandra Reclamation without any payment. The above