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 or religious purposes, or which is of the nature referred to in sub- clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, or which is of the nature referred to in sub- section (4A) of section 11, tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

160(1)(iv) of the Act and section 161 as regards representative assessee did not apply to the assessee in the case on hand. He also upheld the action of the AO in treating the interest received as "Income from business", as against the claim of the assessee that it is not its income but that of the beneficiaries

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 for commission. The assessment of entry providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the accommodation transaction was taxed. Few do accommodation transaction was taxed. Few donors covered u/s nors covered u/s Estate of Vandravan P Shah

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

160], raising artistic tastes is also an educational purpose. Education, in the context of the law of charity as defined under section 2(15) of the Act is not limited to teaching in the narrow sense raising the artistic taste of the country by 6 Nehru Centre public performances, dramas, music or show would be in the nature of education

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

160(1)(iv) of the Act and section 161 as regards representative assessee did not apply to the assessee in the case on hand. He also upheld the action of the AO in treating the interest received as "Income from business", as against the claim of the assessee that it is not its income but that of the beneficiaries

SHREE CAMBAY SWETAMBER VISHA SHRIMALI JAIN SAMAJ SAHAYAK TRUST, ,MUMBAI vs. COMMMSSIONER OF INCOMETAX(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 11(1)(a) cannot be invoked only on the ground that the trust deed provides for activities outside India. Some decisions on this Principle are: A. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of India reported in (1988) 169 ITR 298, considered the issue whether a trust for charitable purposes in India

HEMLATA CHARITIES,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. WARD 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 11(1)(a) cannot be invoked only on the ground that the trust deed provides for activities outside India. Some decisions on this Principle are: A. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of India reported in (1988) 169 ITR 298, considered the issue whether a trust for charitable purposes in India

SILA FOR CHANGE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Sila For Change Foundation Commissioner Of Income-Tax A-301, 3Rd Floor, (Exemption) Neelam Centre, 601, 6Th Floor, Plot 249A, Worli, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400030. Mtnl Building, Pan: Abgcs5333L Vs. Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra- 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)(a) cannot be invoked only on the ground that the trust deed provides for activities outside India. Some decisions on this Principle are: A. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of Indiareported in (1988) 169 ITR 298, considered the issue whether a trust for charitable purposes in India and abroad

SILA FOR CHANGE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar & Sila For Change Foundation Commissioner Of Income-Tax A-301, 3Rd Floor, (Exemption) Neelam Centre, 601, 6Th Floor, Plot 249A, Worli, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400030. Mtnl Building, Pan: Abgcs5333L Vs. Peddar Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra- 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11(1)(a) cannot be invoked only on the ground that the trust deed provides for activities outside India. Some decisions on this Principle are: A. Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of Indiareported in (1988) 169 ITR 298, considered the issue whether a trust for charitable purposes in India and abroad

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

ISARC-14/2010-11 TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Isarc 14/2010-11 Vs. Ito 23(1)(2), Trust Room No.108, C-11, G Block, Sme Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Development Centre Grant Road, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8646N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ito 23(1)(2), Vs. M/S. Isarc 14/2010-11 Room No.108, Trust Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road C-11, G Block, Sme Grant Road, Development Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8646N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Isarc-12/2010-11 Vs. Ito 23(1)(2), Trust Room No.108, C-11, G Block, Sme Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Development Centre Grant Road, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8644Q Isarc Sidbi 2/2009-10 Trust

charitable trusts where the investors name and beneficial interest are not explicitly known on the date of its creation - such information becoming available only when the funds starts accepting contribution from investors, have to be treated as falling within section 164 (1) of the Act and the fund should be taxed in respect of the income received on behalf

MAHANSARIA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, MUMBAI-5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahansaria Enterprises Private The Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Pcit), 301-304, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Peninsula Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Corporate Park, Maharshi Karve Road, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel West, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400026 Pan : Aaacy1568L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vipul Joshi, Adv. & Prashant Bhumare For Revenue : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-5 [„Ld.Pcit‟] U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Dated 17-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

160 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi – Trib.). 14. In his rejoinder, the Ld.AR has submitted that both the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Delhi Tribunal have been considered in case of Interglobe Technology Quotient (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra) and American Express 13 (India) P. Ltd. vs. PCIT

RENEWED HOPE COMMUNITY TRUST,NEW PANVEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Renewed Hope Community Commissioner Of Income Trust Tax Exemption Pune 322, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax 42, Vighnaharta Enclave, Matheran Road, Office Vs. New Panvel, Pmt Building, Swargate, Navi Mumbai, Thane- Shankar Sheth Road, 410206 Pune-411037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaetr5822

160 taxmann.com 358/205 ITD 673 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), the ITAT held that where objects of assessee-trust were primarily charitable rather than favouring any specific religious community, CIT(E) was not justified in denying registration under Section 12A, by invoking Section 13(1

RAVI DYEWARE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. DCIT- 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN,MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalravi Dyeware Co. Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit – 3(3)(1) 121 Atlanta, Vs Marg Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point, Mumbai – Mumbai. 400021. Pan/Gir No. Aaacr4665F (Applicant) (Respondent)

160 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi-Trib.)], wherein it was held that CSR expenditure, being specifically disallowed under Section 37(1) of the Act, cannot be simultaneously claimed under Section 80G. According to the Revenue, such a statutory bar operates 13 Ravi Dyeware Co. Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. uniformly and, therefore, any allowance of deduction under Section 80G in respect of CSR expenditure

SARASWAT HITWARDHAK MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman(A.M.) Saraswat Hitwardhak Vs Ito-18(3)(4), Mumbai. Mandal, 1St Floor, Saraswat Bhawan, Chatrapati Shivaji Lane, Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016. Pan : Aagts 2691 M Appellant Respondednt

1 11. Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for the department contended that the assessee trust should be assessee as an individual. He relied upon section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act. He contended that section 2(31) defines a person to include an individual, a Hindu undivided family, a company, a firm, an AOP or a body of individuals

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

1) along with provisions of section 160 of the Act and their specific reference to “income” and not “total income” makes it very clear that entire income of such trust has to be taxed at maximum marginal rate and not at a concessional rate. 7.1. It was further held by the AO, without prejudice the above, that these “options