TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and for alleged violation in conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and for alleged violation in conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and for alleged violation in conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEPTION) -CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of\ndispute

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of\ndispute

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of\ndispute

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of\ndispute

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act and for alleged violation\nin conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied\nexemption u/s.11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee's claim of exemption\nu/s.10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature of\ndispute

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.06.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt. DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (f) ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development Corporation (2015) (54 taxmann.com 110)(Cochin Truib). 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.0o6.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt, DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (fi ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development Corporation (2015) (54 taxmann.com 11 0)(Cochin Truib). 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.06.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt. DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (f) ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development Corporation (2015) (54 taxmann.com 110)(Cochin Truib). 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

156 Taxmann 37). (d) Goa Industrial Development Corporation Vs. CIT, Panaji dated 22.06.2012. (e) ITAT Cochin Bench in the case of Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs. Jt. DIT(OSD)(E), Range-4, Kochi. (f) ADIT(E), Trivandrum Vs. Kerala Industrial Development Corporation (2015) (54 taxmann.com 110)(Cochin Truib). 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Section 153A(1)(a), the notices u/s 153A were issued for assessment years 2009-10 to AY. 2014-15 requiring M/s. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, to furnish returns for the said years. The materials seized the search proceedings was verified and scrutinized. This exercise reveals that the page no. A-1/154 to 156

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Section 153A(1)(a), the notices u/s 153A were issued for assessment years 2009-10 to AY. 2014-15 requiring M/s. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, to furnish returns for the said years. The materials seized the search proceedings was verified and scrutinized. This exercise reveals that the page no. A-1/154 to 156

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Section 153A(1)(a), the notices u/s 153A were issued for assessment years 2009-10 to AY. 2014-15 requiring M/s. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, to furnish returns for the said years. The materials seized the search proceedings was verified and scrutinized. This exercise reveals that the page no. A-1/154 to 156

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Section 153A(1)(a), the notices u/s 153A were issued for assessment years 2009-10 to AY. 2014-15 requiring M/s. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, to furnish returns for the said years. The materials seized the search proceedings was verified and scrutinized. This exercise reveals that the page no. A-1/154 to 156

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Section 153A(1)(a), the notices u/s 153A were issued for assessment years 2009-10 to AY. 2014-15 requiring M/s. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, to furnish returns for the said years. The materials seized the search proceedings was verified and scrutinized. This exercise reveals that the page no. A-1/154 to 156

NALIN VYAS (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR BRIJESH VYAS),VIRAR vs. ITO 4 (3), THANE

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

Section 153A(1)(a), the notices u/s 153A were issued for assessment years 2009-10 to AY. 2014-15 requiring M/s. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, to furnish returns for the said years. The materials seized the search proceedings was verified and scrutinized. This exercise reveals that the page no. A-1/154 to 156

THE CATHEDRAL VIDYA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhthe Cathedral Vidya Trust Ito (Exemption)-1(1), 6, Purushottamdas Thakurdas Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aabtt5706B (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable and commercial in nature. (iii) The assessee-Trust is making payment of lease rent to a company in which the Trustee of the assessee are Director and majority shareholder, which violates section 13 of the Act. It was argued that assessee has filed its reply and given satisfactory explanation and substantiated its contention that the assessee is not working