SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

trust for charitable purposes, which is of the nature referred to in section 11(4A), tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11. Section 164(2) was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1989. Earlier it was omitted by the Direct

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

trust for charitable purposes, which is of the nature referred to in Section 11(4A), tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under Section 11. Section 164(2) was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, with effect from April 1, 1989. Earlier it was omitted by the Direct

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

1 April, 2015 and will be applicable from Assessment Year 2015 2016 onwards. Similar amendment, simultaneously introduced through Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, in respect of the deduction for depreciation in the case of charitable trusts, has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan & Gujarati

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

trust for charitable purposes, which is of the nature referred to in Section 11(4A), tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under Section 11. Section 164(2) was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, with effect from April 1, 1989. Earlier it was omitted by the Direct

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).

161(1) of the Act is not applicable: (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in ruling that Trust is not a valid Trust. (b) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: (i) All the essentials for creation of a valid trust were fulfilled

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

trust for charitable purposes, which is of the nature referred to in section 11(4A), tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11. Section 164(2) was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1989. Earlier it was omitted by the Direct

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

trust for charitable purposes, which is of the nature referred to in section 11(4A), tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11. Section 164(2) was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1989. Earlier it was omitted by the Direct

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

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

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

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

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

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

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

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

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

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

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

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

charitable trusts and claimed same as deduction under section 80G - Whether Explanation 2 to section 37(1) which denies deduction for CSR ITA No.2959/Mum/2025; A.Y. 2020-21 9 A. K. Capital Services Limited expenses by way of business expenditure is applicable only to extent of computing 'business income' under Chapter IV-D and; it could not be extended or imported

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

161(l) of the Act is not applicable: (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in ruling that Trust is not a valid Trust. (b) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to have held that: (i) All the essentials for creation of a valid trust were fulfilled

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 ()

161, section 162 section 162, and section 167, shall, so far as may be and to the extent to which they are not , shall, so far as may be and to the extent to which they are not , shall, so far as may be and to the extent to which they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this section

LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

161 taxmann. Com 588 (Orissa).\nHe submitted that, sub section 4 of section 12AB widened the scope of violations\nspecified under sub section 5.\n3. 4. The Ld.DR thus vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted that\nunless and until the Ld.CIT(E) is not satisfied about the objects of the\ntrust/institutions and the genuineness of its activities, registration

M/S. LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

161 taxmann. Com 588 (Orissa).\nHe submitted that, sub section 4 of section 12AB widened the scope of violations\nspecified under sub section 5.\n3.4.\nThe Ld.DR thus vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted that\nunless and until the Ld.CIT(E) is not satisfied about the objects of the\ntrust/institutions and the genuineness of its activities, registration u/s.\n12AB

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)

161 taxmann. Com 588 (Orissa). He submitted that, sub section 4 of section 12AB widened the scope of violations specified under sub section 5. 3.4. The Ld.DR thus vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted that unless and until the Ld.CIT(E) is not satisfied about the objects of the trust/institutions and the genuineness of its activities, registration u/s. 12AB

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)

161 taxmann. Com 588 (Orissa). He submitted that, sub section 4 of section 12AB widened the scope of violations specified under sub section 5. 3.4. The Ld.DR thus vehemently supported the impugned order and submitted that unless and until the Ld.CIT(E) is not satisfied about the objects of the trust/institutions and the genuineness of its activities, registration u/s. 12AB

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 773/मुं/2021 (िन.व.2016-17) Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaats1013P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Amol Kirtane, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

trust for charitable purposes, which is of the nature referred to in section 11(4A), tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11. Section 164(2) was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989 with effect from 1-4-1989. Earlier it was omitted by the Direct