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 which may have been set up to achieve the objects enumerated under Section 2 of the Act particularly in view of the addition of first and second proviso made by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f 1. 04.2009 to Section 12AA of the Act. There are findings of fact that the assessee-appellant has not been acting to advance

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 which may have been set up to achieve the objects enumerated under Section 2 of the Act particularly in view of the addition of first and second proviso made by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f 1. 04.2009 to Section 12AA of the Act. There are findings of fact that the assessee-appellant has not been acting to advance

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 which may have been set up to achieve the objects enumerated under Section 2 of the Act particularly in view of the addition of first and second proviso made by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f 1. 04.2009 to Section 12AA of the Act. There are findings of fact that the assessee-appellant has not been acting to advance

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 which may have been set up to achieve the objects enumerated under Section 2 of the Act particularly in view of the addition of first and second proviso made by the Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f 1. 04.2009 to Section 12AA of the Act. There are findings of fact that the assessee-appellant has not been acting to advance

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

charitable trust), but is not registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence the persons/individuals for whom the trust is created do not have any "vested share" in the income of the trust, therefore, the question of the share being indeterminate or unknown does not arise. The question is a logical one but this becomes a Trust

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Appeal stands disposed off as partly allowed for statistical purposes

155. Section 11(4) applies to cases where the business undertaking itself is the property held by a trust. Thus, where the property held in trust, or where property settled by the donor or trust creator in favour of the trustees itself is a business undertaking, then the income from such an undertaking is covered by Section 11(4). Section

BOMBAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 101 ITR. Contention of the appellant is therefore rejected. The judicial decisions relied upon by Ld. AR are distinguishable and had been decided without considering the Apex court's decision cited supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 155

BOMBAY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & MACKINNON MACKENZIE BUILDING,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXE)-1 (1) , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5832/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10) Bombay Chamber Of Commerce & The Income-Tax Officer Mackinnon Mackenzie Building, 4, (Exemptions)-1(1), फनाभ/ Room No. 508, 5 Th Floor, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcb2270M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi & Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Drs’ ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 101 ITR. Contention of the appellant is therefore rejected. The judicial decisions relied upon by Ld. AR are distinguishable and had been decided without considering the Apex court's decision cited supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 155

THE MARG FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2(4), MUMBAI

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

section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling as held in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore (101 ITR 234). iv. Referring to the deed of trust, Assessing Officer noted that the word "education

CREATION PUBLICITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

155 ITR 536 (SC) CIT v Jalan Trading Co. P Ltd. was handed over in the course of the hearing. A brief reading of the same, shows that the same dealt with the issue whether a certain royalty payment was capital or revenue in nature. The said decision has no bearing whatsoever on the case before Your Honour. In response

CREATION PUBLICITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

155 ITR 536 (SC) CIT v Jalan Trading Co. P Ltd. was handed over in the course of the hearing. A brief reading of the same, shows that the same dealt with the issue whether a certain royalty payment was capital or revenue in nature. The said decision has no bearing whatsoever on the case before Your Honour. In response

CREATION PUBLICITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

155 ITR 536 (SC) CIT v Jalan Trading Co. P Ltd. was handed over in the course of the hearing. A brief reading of the same, shows that the same dealt with the issue whether a certain royalty payment was capital or revenue in nature. The said decision has no bearing whatsoever on the case before Your Honour. In response

CREATION PUBLICITY PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 1St Floor, Parekh Vora Ward-2(1)(2), बनाम/ Chambers, 66, Nagindas Mumbai. Vs. Master Road, Fort, Mumbai. (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aabcc 2192 B

155 ITR 536 (SC) CIT v Jalan Trading Co. P Ltd. was handed over in the course of the hearing. A brief reading of the same, shows that the same dealt with the issue whether a certain royalty payment was capital or revenue in nature. The said decision has no bearing whatsoever on the case before Your Honour. In response

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-2(3), MUMBAI, MTNL BUILDING, CUMBALA HILL vs. SETH DAMJI LAXMICHAND JAIN DHARMA STHANAK, CHINCHPOKALI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

CHARITABLE TRUST vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF IINCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-II (2015) 155 ITD 0727 (Chennai). In view of the same, we hold, that the denial of benefit of accumulation for delayed filing of Form No.10 is not as per law.” 4. At this stage, the Ld. DR has submitted that the case laws relied upon by the Tribunal in respect

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: 63[Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43CA, the provisions

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: 63[Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43CA, the provisions

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

155 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the stamp duty value of such property for the purpose of this sub-clause as they apply for valuation of capital asset under those sections: 63[Provided also that in case of property being referred to in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43CA, the provisions

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable institutions. The assessee is running Engineering,\nArchitecture and other courses at Navi Mumbai. There was a search operation\nunder Section 132 on the group entities i.e. D Y Patil University (Navi Mumbai),\nits trustees, certain employees from 27.07.2016 to 29.07.2016. In the course of\nsearch statement under section 132(4) was recorded from the following persons:\n(a) Shri

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

trust and was created as local authority. However, proceedings under section 263 of the Act were initiated by the CIT, for assessment year 2009– 10, on the basis that proviso to section 2(15) was not considered by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, whereby the exemption under Slum Rehabilitation Authority