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

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

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

charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community and therefore, it cannot be held that Section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be attracted to the respondent-trust and thereby, it would be eligible to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act.” iv. Human Welfare Foundation v. DCIT(E) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 650 (Delhi

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

MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) - I(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

section 2(15) are not applicable to the assessee's case, It is pertinent to mention here that merely mention in the trust deed cannot constitute to the assessee that it is engaged in relief to poor. The major activity of the assessee is acquiring land and developing the housing society which is clearly a commercial activity. However

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

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

1 of the schedule are applicable only to the extent of calculating the MMR which will be in accordance with sub section 3 of section 2 of Finance Act, 2020. It is further contended that MMR has to be calculated as per section 2(29C) r.w.s. 164 of the Act and that the Finance Act of every year is only

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

1 of the schedule are applicable only to the extent of calculating the MMR which will be in accordance with sub section 3 of section 2 of Finance Act, 2020. It is further contended that MMR has to be calculated as per section 2(29C) r.w.s. 164 of the Act and that the Finance Act of every year is only

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

1 of the schedule are applicable only to the extent of calculating the MMR which will be in accordance with sub section 3 of section 2 of Finance Act, 2020. It is further contended that MMR has to be calculated as per section 2(29C) r.w.s. 164 of the Act and that the Finance Act of every year is only

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

JEWELEX INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

charitable trust for which the assessee has claimed 50% of the total donation paid as deduction u/s. 800 of the Act. Prior to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, the said expenditure was claimed as 'business expenditure' u/s. 37(1) of the Act where after the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses referred

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:

173 taxmann.com 366 (Mumbai - Trib.)] xii. American Express (India) P. Ltd. vs. PCIT [2024] 166 taxmann.com 91 (Delhi-Trib.) 12 xiii. Interglobe Technology Quotient (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2024] 163 taxmann.com 542 (Delhi-Trib.) 13. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the findings of the Ld.PCIT. The ld PCIT has referred to the explanation 2 to Section 37(1

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

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;]] activities, of that previous year;]] Section 13(8) (8) Nothing contained in section 1 (8) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so 1 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude any income from the total income of the previous as to exclude

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

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 & denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act by invoking proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The Appellant submitted that it has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act since the activities of the Appellant are charitable in nature. The Ld. AO after relying on the assessment order for AY 2010-11 denied exemption of section

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 & denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act by invoking proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. The Appellant submitted that it has claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act since the activities of the Appellant are charitable in nature. The Ld. AO after relying on the assessment order for AY 2010-11 denied exemption of section

ANUH PHARMA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

173 taxmann.com 774 (SC)\nwherein it is held that the assessee does not have control over the\npen of the Assessing Officer and once, the Assessing Officer carried\nout the investigation but does not make any addition it can be\ntaken that he accepted the plea and stand of the assessee. The Ld.\ncounsel also relied on the decision

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