SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), 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

charitable purposes under section 10(23C)(iv), and this notification has been renewed from time to time. The conditions precedent for grant of notification under section 10(23C) were similar to section 13(1)(d) inasmuch as it was provided that if the funds were invested in modes other than those specified under section 11(5), the benefit

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

164(2). Thus the exemption u/s 11 is available to the assessee only on the income to the extent the same is derived in conformity of section 11 and applied during the year for such purpose of charitable trust. 9. Ground No.2 is regarding denial of exemption u/s 10(34), 10(35) and 10(38). 9.1 The assessee claimed that

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

164(2) for the violation it made, it couldn't claim the exemption for the same in the disguise of section 10(34) to avoid taxation: Moreover, the case law quoted by the appellant in its favour by Jurisdictional ITAT Bench i.e. Jasubhai Foundation, is comparing like apples and oranges and hence the same couldn't be taken

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

164(2). Thus the exemption u/s 11 is available to the assessee only on the income to the extent the same is derived in conformity of section 11 and applied during the year for such purpose of charitable trust. 9. Ground No.2 is regarding denial of exemption u/s 10(34), 10(35) and 10(38). 9.1 The assessee claimed that

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

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

charitable purposes under section 10(23C)(iv), and this notification has been renewed from time to time. The conditions precedent for grant of notification under section 10(23C) were similar to section 13(1)(d) inasmuch as it was provided that if the funds were invested in modes other than those specified under section 11(5), the benefit

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

charitable purposes under section 10(23C)(iv), and this notification has been renewed from time to time. The conditions precedent for grant of notification under section 10(23C) were similar to section 13(1)(d) inasmuch as it was provided that if the funds were invested in modes other than those specified under section 11(5), the benefit

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

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

164(2) where whole or any part of relevant income of the trust is not exempt under s. 11 or s. 12 because of contravention of s. 13(1)(d), tax is chargeable on such income or part thereof at the maximum marginal rate—Only the non-exempt portion of income would fall

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

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

164(2) where whole or any part of relevant income of the trust is not exempt under s. 11 or s. 12 because of contravention of s. 13(1)(d), tax is chargeable on such income or part thereof at the maximum marginal rate—Only the non-exempt portion of income would fall

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

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

164(2) where whole or any part of relevant income of the trust is not exempt under s. 11 or s. 12 because of contravention of s. 13(1)(d), tax is chargeable on such income or part thereof at the maximum marginal rate—Only the non-exempt portion of income would fall

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

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

164(2) where whole or any part of relevant income of the trust is not exempt under s. 11 or s. 12 because of contravention of s. 13(1)(d), tax is chargeable on such income or part thereof at the maximum marginal rate—Only the non-exempt portion of income would fall

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

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, hfwe to be treated as falling within section 164 (l) of the Act and the fund should be taxed in respect of the income received on behalf

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

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, hfwe to be treated as falling within section 164 (l) of the Act and the fund should be taxed in respect of the income received on behalf

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

iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed the deduction twice. The assessee trust claimed depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays

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

iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed the deduction twice. The assessee trust claimed depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays

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

iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in allowing depreciation without appreciating the fact that the assessee has claimed the deduction twice. The assessee trust claimed depreciation and also capital expenditure viz addition to fixed assets in the computation of income which amounted to double deduction. (v)The appellant prays

ACIT 17(1) , MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

iv. The option granted is a right but not an obligation granted under the ESOS to the eligible employees to apply for acquisition from the trust a specified number of Equity Shares of the Company at a future date at Exercise Price. v. These options are vested with the eligible employees over a period of certain years and eligible employees

ACIT-17(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

iv. The option granted is a right but not an obligation granted under the ESOS to the eligible employees to apply for acquisition from the trust a specified number of Equity Shares of the Company at a future date at Exercise Price. v. These options are vested with the eligible employees over a period of certain years and eligible employees

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