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

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

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

charitable or religious trusts where members or trustees are not entitle to any share in the income of the trust, the provisions of section 167A will not attracted. In present matter provisions of section 164(2) were invoked by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), applied on the income earned by the assessee in the form

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

DCIT (E)- 2(1), MUMBAI vs. J.R.D TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

1)(d)(iii) of I.T. Act. However, the appellant trust has invested in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. and others and the same have been held by the assessee trust during the year, the provision of Section 13(l)(d) clearly specify that the trust cannot hold any funds as investment otherwise than in any one or more

J.R.D. TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (NOW ASSSESSED BY THE DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

1)(d)(iii) of I.T. Act. However, the appellant trust has invested in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. and others and the same have been held by the assessee trust during the year, the provision of Section 13(l)(d) clearly specify that the trust cannot hold any funds as investment otherwise than in any one or more

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 registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The Trust had obtained registration under section 12A of the Act on 10th December, 1990. However, the Trust surrendered the aforesaid registration vide letter dated 19th February, 2015.The Trust filed its return of income on 18th November, 2021 offering interest, dividend and other income to tax amounting to Rs.19

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

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

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

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

Section 11 (1)(a) are very clear and provide that income derived from property held under trust should not be included in income to extent it was applied for charitable or religious purposes (expenses incurred during the year) or accumulated/set apart to-be applied for that purpose in future out of 75% to which restriction u/s. 11(5) applied—ITAT

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

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

Section 11 (1)(a) are very clear and provide that income derived from property held under trust should not be included in income to extent it was applied for charitable or religious purposes (expenses incurred during the year) or accumulated/set apart to-be applied for that purpose in future out of 75% to which restriction u/s. 11(5) applied—ITAT

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

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

Section 11 (1)(a) are very clear and provide that income derived from property held under trust should not be included in income to extent it was applied for charitable or religious purposes (expenses incurred during the year) or accumulated/set apart to-be applied for that purpose in future out of 75% to which restriction u/s. 11(5) applied—ITAT

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

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

Section 11 (1)(a) are very clear and provide that income derived from property held under trust should not be included in income to extent it was applied for charitable or religious purposes (expenses incurred during the year) or accumulated/set apart to-be applied for that purpose in future out of 75% to which restriction u/s. 11(5) applied—ITAT

ITO 23 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ISARC-FA-41-I/2011-12 TRUST, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodito-23(1)(2) Isarc-Fa-41-I/2011-12 Trust. R. No. 108, Matru Mandir, C-11, G Block Sme Grant Road, Development Centre, Bandra Mumbai – 400 007 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Vs. Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaati8796F Appellant Respondent Ito-23(1)(2) Isarc-Sidbi-2/2009-10 Trust. C-11, G Block Sme R. No. 108, Matru Mandir, Development Centre, Bandra Grant Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 007 Vs. Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaati7943N Appellant Respondent Ito-23(1)(2) Isarc-Bob-1/2009-10 Trust. R. No. 108, Matru Mandir, C-11, G Block Sme Grant Road, Development Centre, Bandra Mumbai – 400 007 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Vs. Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaati7942P Appellant Respondent : Shri Amit Pratap Singh (Dr) Appellant By Respondent By : Ms. Dinkle Haria (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2020

section 164 (1) of the IT Act b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has ignored the fact that in this case investors/ contributors are also the beneficiaries and at the date of creation of trust, beneficiaries were not identifiable. (c) On the facts and circumstances of the case

ITO 23 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ISARC-SIDBI-2/2009-10 TRUST, MUMBAI

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodito-23(1)(2) Isarc-Fa-41-I/2011-12 Trust. R. No. 108, Matru Mandir, C-11, G Block Sme Grant Road, Development Centre, Bandra Mumbai – 400 007 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Vs. Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaati8796F Appellant Respondent Ito-23(1)(2) Isarc-Sidbi-2/2009-10 Trust. C-11, G Block Sme R. No. 108, Matru Mandir, Development Centre, Bandra Grant Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 007 Vs. Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaati7943N Appellant Respondent Ito-23(1)(2) Isarc-Bob-1/2009-10 Trust. R. No. 108, Matru Mandir, C-11, G Block Sme Grant Road, Development Centre, Bandra Mumbai – 400 007 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Vs. Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaati7942P Appellant Respondent : Shri Amit Pratap Singh (Dr) Appellant By Respondent By : Ms. Dinkle Haria (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2020

section 164 (1) of the IT Act b) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has ignored the fact that in this case investors/ contributors are also the beneficiaries and at the date of creation of trust, beneficiaries were not identifiable. (c) On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

164(2) is attracted" 3. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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

164(2) is attracted" 3. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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

164(2) is attracted" 3. "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

SHREE JAIN SWETAMBER DEHARSHAR UPSHRAYA TRUST,THANE vs. ASST CIT PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K.Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Jain Swetamber Acit, Palghar Circle, Deharshar Upshraya Trust Palghar बनाम/ C/O. Anoopchandji Karnava, T Vs. Main Road, Dahanu Town Dahanu Road, Dist: Thane ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaets4024L

1) or u/s 164(2), and the objects of the setting up of the trust is for public trust, therefore the provisions of section 164(2) of the Act are applicable and the assessee income shall be taxed at normal rates instead of maximum marginal rates, vide appellate orders dated 21-10-2015. 6. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated