MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light of above "definition" as explained by CBDT vide Circular dated 19th December, 2008 and exposition of law, discussed above, whether an IDA constituted under a provincial enactment, on the subject of Industrial Development, would satisfy requirement of Section 2(15) of Act, 1961 and would

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light of above "definition" as explained by CBDT vide Circular dated 19th December, 2008 and exposition of law, discussed above, whether an IDA constituted under a provincial enactment, on the subject of Industrial Development, would satisfy requirement of Section 2(15) of Act, 1961 and would

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light of above "definition" as explained by CBDT vide Circular dated 19th December, 2008 and exposition of law, discussed above, whether an IDA constituted under a provincial enactment, on the subject of Industrial Development, would satisfy requirement of Section 2(15) of Act, 1961 and would

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light of above "definition" as explained by CBDT vide Circular dated 19th December, 2008 and exposition of law, discussed above, whether an IDA constituted under a provincial enactment, on the subject of Industrial Development, would satisfy requirement of Section 2(15) of Act, 1961 and would

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

MASINA HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPITONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Masina Hospital Trust, Cit(Exemptions), 1 Masina Hospital, Sant Satva Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Vs. Marg, Byculla, Hill Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Mumbai-400027. Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatm 0786 D Appellant Respondent

section 13(2)(a) of the Act. (ii) The assessee trust was having assessee trust was having one of the object for providing object for providing services to a particular particular community only. 3. The detailed finding of the Ld. CIT(E) is reproduced as under: he detailed finding of the Ld. CIT(E) is reproduced as under: he detailed

THE INDIAN MERCHANTS CHAMBERS,,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4076/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) The Indian Merchants Chambers, Vs. Ddit(Exemption)-Ii(1), Imc Building, Imc Marg, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400020 Parel, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati 00047 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.S.Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/ 06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Basically Aggrieved For Decline Of Exemption U/S.11 On The Plea That Proviso To Section 2(15) Was Applicable To The Assessee Which Was Introduced W.E.F. Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Registered As A Company U/S.25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Main Objects Of The Assessee Trust Inter Alia Are To Promote, Advance & Protect Trade, Commerce & Industry In India. The Ao Held That The Assessee Was Not Imparting Education In Pursuance Of Its Objects. He Held That The Activity Of Organizing Seminars, The Definition Of Education. The Assessee Was Running Certain Seminars

Trust 101 ITR 234 and Bihar Institute of Mining 208 ITR o·Q4 Patna, Saurashtra Educatio.n Foundation Vs. CIT 273 ITR 139 (Guj), Gujarat State Co. op. Union Vs. CIT 195 ITR 279 (Guj) held that the activity of holding commerce classes, arranging seminars and lectures and the activity of running of private commercial courses and consequent conducting of examinations

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

trust.” 7. Section 43B of the Act which reads as under: - Certain deductions to be only on actual payment. 43B. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of- (a) ……. 7 A.Y. 2017-18 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd (b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

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

191 to 195. Your Honours’ kind attention is further drawn to provisions of section 44 of the MMRDA Act, whereby any arears receivable by MMRDA can be recovered as “arears of land revenue”. As defined under section 2(19) of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the term ‘land revenue’ has been defined as under. “(19) “ land revenue” means

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

191 to 195. Your Honours’ kind attention is further drawn to provisions of section 44 of the MMRDA Act, whereby any arears receivable by MMRDA can be recovered as “arears of land revenue”. As defined under section 2(19) of The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the term ‘land revenue’ has been defined as under. “(19) “ land revenue” means

SOCIETY FOR APPLLIED MICROWAVE ELECTRONIC ENGINEERING & RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

trust is engaged purely in the research work in the area of microwave (electronics) and claimed exemption u/s.11 which was allowed by the Department. The allowance of exemption u/s.11 was not in order as the activities of the assessee, the activities were not for charitable purpose but purely a research work. For the 8 ITA.NO.430/MUM/2017 (A.Y: 2008-09) Society

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

charitable purposes. Section 12 deals with income of trust or institutions from contributions. By section 12A conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12 are set out. Section 12AA sets out the procedure for registration. Section 13 states that section 11 will not apply in certain cases. By section 13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

charitable purposes. Section 12 deals with income of trust or institutions from contributions. By section 12A conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12 are set out. Section 12AA sets out the procedure for registration. Section 13 states that section 11 will not apply in certain cases. By section 13A, special provision is made relating to incomes of political parties

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 12(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.4 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.2389/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Mahindra & Mahindra Adcit, Range-12(2), Employees‟ Stock Option Mumbai-20 Trust, Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai- 400001 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfm 9583 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri H.P.Mahajani याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri N.P.Singh सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Cit(A) -28, Mumbai, Dated 26-3-2015 For A.Y.2011-12. 2. During The Course Of Hearing The Assessee Has Filed Concise Grounds Of Appeal. These Have Been Considered By Us For The Adjudication Of This Appeal & Are Reproduced Hereunder :-

191(Delhi), wherein it was held that as per section 2(14), the term “property” is of wide amplitude. It signifies every possible interest which a person can acquire, hold and enjoy. Thus, all these judgments dispels doubts expressed by the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) that these shares were not in nature of capital asset in the hands

DCIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

191/-, without properly appreciating that the assessee earned Rs. 6,12,42,452/- from letting out of its auditorium, which constituted 51.24% of its total receipts during the year and reflected a regular and organised commercial activity become its dominant source of income, as more than half of the total receipts arose from this activity, thereby clearly attracting the proviso

DCIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

191/-, without properly appreciating that the assessee earned Rs. 6,12,42,452/- from letting out of its auditorium, which constituted 51.24% of its total receipts during the year and reflected a regular and organised commercial activity become its dominant source of income, as more than half of the total receipts arose from this activity, thereby clearly attracting the proviso

DCIT (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. ADITYA BIRLA FOUNDATION , MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

section 13 which are relevant for charitable trust, I hold that ABHSL is not a related-party u/s. 43(3) of the Act and thus the addition made by the AO is deleted. The Appellant has also submitted that assuming without admitting that ABHSL was a related party, even then the word being used u/s.13(2)(b) is "adequate rent

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankar

191 ITR 662, for initiation of action under Section 147(a) (as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfilment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant. In other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established