ODHAVJI CHANABHAI PERAJ CHARITY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(3)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

charitable or\nreligious trusts, etc.” The sub rule (2) of Rule 17A mandates that the\napplication in Form 10AB is to be accompanied by certain specific\ndocuments mentioned in Rule 11AA(2), it was noted by him from various\nclauses of the trust deed/MOA, being the objects of trust deed/MOA,\nthe applicant intended to apply fund outside India. He observed

ODHAVJI CHANABHAI PERAJ CHARITY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 25(3)(1),MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed

charitable or\nreligious trusts, etc.” The sub rule (2) of Rule 17A mandates that the\napplication in Form 10AB is to be accompanied by certain specific\ndocuments mentioned in Rule 11AA(2), it was noted by him from various\nclauses of the trust deed/MOA, being the objects of trust deed/MOA,\nthe applicant intended to apply fund outside India. He observed

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Charitable Trust Rs.59,04,620/- for which the tax is to be computed at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) or at 30% as against the slab rate applicable to individuals and the levy of surcharge amounting to Rs.6,55,413/- @37% instead of 10% as alleged by the assessee. 10. The Revenue’s contention is that the MMR specified in part

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Charitable Trust Rs.59,04,620/- for which the tax is to be computed at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) or at 30% as against the slab rate applicable to individuals and the levy of surcharge amounting to Rs.6,55,413/- @37% instead of 10% as alleged by the assessee. 10. The Revenue’s contention is that the MMR specified in part

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Charitable Trust Rs.59,04,620/- for which the tax is to be computed at Maximum Marginal Rate (MMR) or at 30% as against the slab rate applicable to individuals and the levy of surcharge amounting to Rs.6,55,413/- @37% instead of 10% as alleged by the assessee. 10. The Revenue’s contention is that the MMR specified in part

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

JINSEVA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed

Trust (ITA No. 1164 &\n1165/Mum/2025.\n(ii) Dedhia Music Foundation (2025) 173 Taxmann.com 394\n(Mum-ITAT)\n6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand,\nrelied on the order of the Ld. CIT(Exemptions) and argued that the\napplication of funds outside India would be in violation of the\nprovisions of section 11 of the Act and hence

ADITYA BIRLA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

173 taxmann.com 394 (Mumbai - Trib.) held that Application of income of a charitable trust or institution outside India for carrying out its objects would not fall under any categories of 'specified violation' as mentioned in Explanation to section

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

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, ()

173 taxmann.com 219 (Mumbai - Trib.)[13-03-2025], wherein it was held as under: 7. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below, we are of the considered view that the Coordinate Benches have been consistently taking the stand that 80G deduction cannot be denied. The relevant findings in the case of Ericsson India Global Services

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OTTERS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

173. It may be useful to conclude this section on interpretation with some illustrations. The example of Gandhi Peace Foundation disseminating Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy (in Surat Art Silk) through museums and exhibitions and publishing his works, for nominal cost, ipso facto is not business. Likewise, providing access to low-cost hostels to weaker segments of society, where

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OTTERS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

173. It may be useful to conclude this section on interpretation with some illustrations. The example of Gandhi Peace Foundation disseminating Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy (in Surat Art Silk) through museums and exhibitions and publishing his works, for nominal cost, ipso facto is not business. Likewise, providing access to low-cost hostels to weaker segments of society, where

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -26(1),MUMBAI, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,MUMBAI vs. R D TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

charitable trust registered with the Office of Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. Assessee trust was set up on 29.03.1990 and had obtained registration u/s. 12A of the Act on 10.12.1990 vide registration No.TR/27968 registered with CIT(E), Mumbai. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2013, reporting total income at deficit of Rs.6

SHAMKRIS CHARITY FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadangms Padmavathy S, Am

Trust or institution. And if he is not satisfied, he can reject the same. This section does not refer to the activities in India or outside India. It refers to application of income for charitable or religious purposes in India as also with direction of order of the Board for application of income as aforesaid outside India. Reading the order

TIH FOUNDATION FOR IOT AND IOE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: the decision of the appeal.”

Trust or institution. And if he is not satisfied, he can reject the same. This section does not refer to the activities in India or outside India. It refers to application of income for charitable or religious purposes in India as also with direction of order of the Board for application of income as aforesaid outside India. Reading the order

SHREE WAGHESHWARI SEVA SAMITI CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhrishree Wagheshwari Seva Vs. Cit(Exemption) Samiti Charitable Trust Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Room No. 2, Natubhai Cumballa Hill, Mtnl Te Gayantra Chawal, Sai Building, Peddar Road, Dr Nagar, M. G. Cross Road, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400067. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aarts5487J Appellant .. Respondent

Charitable Trust Room No. 601, 6th Floor, Room No. 2, Natubhai Cumballa Hill, MTNL TE Gayantra Chawal, Sai Building, Peddar Road, Dr Nagar, M. G. Cross Road, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400067. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AARTS5487J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Prashant S. Ghumare Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta