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

ITO 23(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE ARMY NAY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer -23(2)(3) V. M/S. Milestone Army Navy Trust Room No. 110 602, Hallmark Business Plaza, 1St Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg, Grant Road (W), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 007 Pan No: Aactm 0102 F

194A (3)(iii)(f) of the Act. 5.6 The A.O. has held that the appellant's claim for exemption from taxation in its hands is misplaced and the reasons for creating this smokescreen by instituting a trust, is to launch a special purpose vehicle for investment in equity or quasi-equity instruments of an investee undertaking and earning interest income/profit

ITO WD 19(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. MILESTONE ARMY NAVY TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita Nos.4067/Mum/2014) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Ito Ward-19(3)(3), Mumbai Vs. M/S Milestone Army Navy Trust, 602, Hallmark Business Plaza, Sant Nyaneshwar Marg, Opp. Gurunanak Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-51 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aactm 0102 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Chandra Vijay ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agarwal सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 28-3-2014, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Wherein The Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Revenue :- (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Taxable In The Hands Of Contributors & Not In The Hands Of The Aop. (2) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Activities Of The Assessee Are Not Commercial In Nature Even Though The Assessee Has Not Carried Out Any Activity In The Spirit Of Trust. (3) The Appellant Prays That The Order Of Cit(A) On The Above Ground Be Set Aside & That Of The Ao Be Restored.‖

194A (3)(iii)(f) of the Act. 5.6 The A.O. has held that the appellant's claim for exemption from taxation in its hands is misplaced and the reasons for creating this smokescreen by instituting a trust, is to launch a special purpose vehicle for investment in equity or quasi-equity instruments of an investee undertaking and earning interest income/profit

TATTWAJNANA VIDYAPEETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’Ble

section 11(2) of the Act. 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theasse 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theassessment order by holding ssment order by holding that AO rightly made the additionby relying on the judgment in case of CIT vs. Shree that AO rightly made the additionby relying

TATTWAJNANA VIDYAPEETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’Ble

section 11(2) of the Act. 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theasse 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theassessment order by holding ssment order by holding that AO rightly made the additionby relying on the judgment in case of CIT vs. Shree that AO rightly made the additionby relying

TATTWAJNANA VIDYAPEETH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon’Ble & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’Ble

section 11(2) of the Act. 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theasse 11. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld theassessment order by holding ssment order by holding that AO rightly made the additionby relying on the judgment in case of CIT vs. Shree that AO rightly made the additionby relying

BHAV VARDHAN TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodm/S. Bhav Vardhan Trust Income Tax Officer Nirmal Niketan (Exemption) 1(1) Vs. 2, Dr. Bhajekar Street Mumbai, Mumbai 400004 Pan – Aaatb3631Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajesh P. Shah Respondent By: Shri Abdul Hakem M Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2018 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Mumbai, Dated 23.06.2016, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 02.12.2010 For A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee While Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Of Considering The Tax Claim Of Rs.19,87,100/- As New Claim On The Ground That There Was No Claim Made By Appellant In The Return Of Income. 2. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred Confirming The Action Of Ao Of Not Considering The Tax Expenses Of Rs. 19,87,100/- Incurred On The Object Of The Trust. The Ao Ought To Have Allowed The Same As It Is Allowable As Per Law.

charitable trust cannot be denied on the ground that the deemed income under sec. 198, i.e tax deducted at source under 194A of Rs. 13,28,823/- had not been actually spent for the purpose of charity during the year. The Id. A.R had averred that the tax deducted at source of Rs. 13,28,823/- for the year under

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

Charitable Trust vs. ITO, [2017] 83 taxmann.com 293 wherein the delay of 1631 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was condoned. Though the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned the delay on the ground that assessee did not have the best legal assistance available to it, a ground which is not canvassed before us, so however

NEO SPORTS BROADCAST PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS)2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ravish Sood

Charitable Trust vs. ITO, [2017] 83 taxmann.com 293 wherein the delay of 1631 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal was condoned. Though the Hon'ble Madras High Court condoned the delay on the ground that assessee did not have the best legal assistance available to it, a ground which is not canvassed before us, so however

ADDL.C.I.T. LTU, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

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

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

194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from 24 ITA NO.4669& 4556/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. ACC Limited Singapore branch and which

ACC LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATES CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

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

194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from 24 ITA NO.4669& 4556/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. ACC Limited Singapore branch and which

ACC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT LTU, MUMBAI

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

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

194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from 24 ITA NO.4669& 4556/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. ACC Limited Singapore branch and which

ACC LTD ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDLL CIT ,(LTU), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender of the loan. Therefore, any interest payment

DCIT(LTU) - 1, MUMBAI vs. ACC LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

194A(3)(iii) of the Act. The only dispute is with regard to the residential status of lender of external commercial borrowings to the assessee and interest payment on such external commercial borrowings. The assessee claims that it has borrowed external commercial borrowings from Singapore branch and which is a main lender of the loan. Therefore, any interest payment