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

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

charitable objects. It is submitted that there is no observation of the Ld. AO regarding any irregularities relating to the functioning and objects of the Appellant Trust. It is therefore submitted that the appellant shall ne be deprived of the benefits of provisions of section 11 of the Act merely due to violation of provisions of section

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

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

charitable objects. It is submitted that there is no observation of the Ld. AO regarding any irregularities relating to the functioning and objects of the Appellant Trust. It is therefore submitted that the appellant shall ne be deprived of the benefits of provisions of section 11 of the Act merely due to violation of provisions of section

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

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

charitable objects. It is submitted that there is no observation of the Ld. AO regarding any irregularities relating to the functioning and objects of the Appellant Trust. It is therefore submitted that the appellant shall ne be deprived of the benefits of provisions of section 11 of the Act merely due to violation of provisions of section

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)

sections of the 19 M/s. Muniwar Abad Charitable Trust society. Therefore, the objects of accumulations sought are no more different from the objects for which the accumulation has been permitted in the earlier years. Earlier year orders have not been shown to be subject of either revision or reassessment. Therefore, revenue cannot take a different stand in the year under

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

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

Charitable Trust. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 23. Coming to Ground Nos. 14 and 15 which are in respect of Ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses amounting to ₹.9,71,368/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed his submissions in respect of this issue as under: - “Ground

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

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

charitable purposes but conducting some activities for consideration or fee. In this background, the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act cannot be invoked to exclude assessee Trust from the purview of section 2(15) of the Act since the said proviso only seeks to exclude institutions which are carrying on regular business, as inferred by us following

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

charitable purpose for grant for creation of endowment funds through contribution at the Cornell University, for scholarship of Indian students as well as for joint collaboration project between Indian and Cornell scientists, and grant for financial assistance to Harvard Business School for construction of a New Executive Building named "Tata Hall", as per the details provided below : Sl. No. Assessment

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

charitable purpose for grant for creation of endowment funds through contribution at the Cornell University, for scholarship of Indian students as well as for joint collaboration project between Indian and Cornell scientists, and grant for financial assistance to Harvard Business School for construction of a New Executive Building named "Tata Hall", as per the details provided below : Sl. No. Assessment

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

charitable purpose for grant for creation of endowment funds through contribution at the Cornell University, for scholarship of Indian students as well as for joint collaboration project between Indian and Cornell scientists, and grant for financial assistance to Harvard Business School for construction of a New Executive Building named "Tata Hall", as per the details provided below : Sl. No. Assessment

MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Muniwar Abad Charitable Dy. Director Of Trust Income-Tax Vs. 405A/407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, (Exemption)-I-(1), 10, New Marine Lines, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mumbai-400020. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaatm0140K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. B.V. Jhaveri, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Ram Tiwari, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2018

Charitable Trust 8 included which is in the line of object of the assessee trust for providing housing accommodation to the weaker sections of the society. Therefore, the object of accumulation sought are no more different from the objects for which the accumulation has been permitted in the earlier years. Earlier year orders have not been shown to be subject

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 773/मुं/2021 (िन.व.2016-17) Sir Ratan Tata Trust, Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaats1013P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Room No.617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Sukhsagar Syal, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Amol Kirtane, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2021 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2022 आदेश/ Order

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

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 or the fact that it is conducting a hospital.” Thus from all the above it is seen that though the definition of “charitable” purpose under section 2(15) has undergone changes, the principle underlying the same has remained the same. In context of the above, with regard to the “principle of consistency” it would be of relevance here

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP M/S, S.D. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

193 and 194 of the Act. However, in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we are of the view that if the payees of the interest i.e. the above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns of income and paid income tax as per the applicable provision

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

193 and 194 of the Act. However, in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we are of the view that if the payees of the interest i.e. the above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns of income and paid income tax as per the applicable provision

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

193 and 194 of the Act. However, in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we are of the view that if the payees of the interest i.e. the above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns of income and paid income tax as per the applicable provision

DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. SHEKHAR S. DADARKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

193 and 194 of the Act. However, in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we are of the view that if the payees of the interest i.e. the above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns of income and paid income tax as per the applicable provision

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 34(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

193 and 194 of the Act. However, in view of the 2nd proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, we are of the view that if the payees of the interest i.e. the above stated NBFCs have disclosed the said income in their respective returns of income and paid income tax as per the applicable provision