CHANDRAPRABHU SWETAMBER JAIN MANDIR UPSHRAYA,DHANU vs. ASST CIT PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

charitable trust are income as defined vide section 2(24)(iia) of the Act and corpus donations are exempt from tax under section 11(1)(d) only if assessee is registered under section 12A/12AA of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in placing reliance upon the appellate decision of the hon'ble Delhi High

BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYESS MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3249/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Bank Of India Retired Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Employees Medical Tax (Exemptions), V. Assistance Scheme, Piramal Chambers, Star House, C-5, 6 Th Floor, Lalbaug, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai – 400 012. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabtb3373J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

charitable trust are income as defined vide section 2(24)(iia) of the Act and corpus donations are exempt from tax under section 11(1)(d) only if assessee is registered under section 12A/12AA of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in placing reliance upon the appellate decision of the hon'ble Delhi High

M/S FEDERATION OF FREIGHT FORWARDERS ASSOCIATIONS IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed and additions amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Federation Of Freight Forwarders Associations, 311/313, Mahinder Chambers, W.T. Patil Marg, Opp. Dukes Factory, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aaatf0039J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(3), Piramal Chambers 4Th Floor, Dr. S.S. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

charitable organizations would now be governed by the additional conditions stipulated in the proviso to section 2 (15)." 5. AO further held as under: “4.3 Further, the assessee in its submission gives reference to provision of investment of interest within the meaning of section 11(5) of the IT Act. However, the assessee failed to pay heed to the CBDT

BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Bank Of India Retired Employees Ito(E)-1(1), Mumbai. Medical Assistance Trust, C-5, G बिधम/ Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabtb3373J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

196 (Cal). The Ld. A.R in order to drive home his contention that the contributions received by a charitable or religious trust or institution with a specific direction that the same would form part of the corpus of the trust or institution is not to be treated as income of the assessee, took us through the amendment

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

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

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

MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Us:

trust cannot be construed as charitable within the meaning of charitable purpose as defined u/s 2(15) of the I.T. Act as amended from 01.04.2019 and he also of the view that assessee was engaged in various commercial activities which prima facie were in the nature of business. However, with the assistance of ld. Representative we have gone through

THE ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIAN OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) II (2), MUMBAI

In the result, Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

charitable organizations would now be governed by the additional conditions stipulated in the proviso to section 2 (15)." ii. The assessee has described its objects as solidarity and endowment to its members only. Thus, all the persons of the society do not utilize the benefit of the trust. It is benefited to limited person i.e. Members of the assessee trust

ALL INDIA LIQUID BULK IMPOERTERS & EXPORTERS ASSSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. ADIT(E)-II(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleall India Liquid Bulk Vs. Adit(E)-Ii(2) Importers & Exporters Piramal Chambers, Association Lalbaug, Parel, 501- Mulratna, Mumbai – 400012. 334- Katha Bazar, Masjid, Mumbai – 400009. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagca5018F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Paresh Shaparia.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Kailash Mangal.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961.The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: I. Confirmation Of Treatment Of The Non-Profit Organisation As A Mutual Concern & Denying Exemption U/S 11: 1. The Learned C1.T(A) Erred In Confirming Treatment Of The All Inida Liquid Bulk Importers & Exporters Association, Mumbai. Appellant As A Mutual Association Created Exclusively For The Benefit Of Its Members. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Basic Conditions Of The Concept Of Mutuality Are Not Satisfied, Hence The Same Is Not Applicable To The Appellant.

196 ITR 137 (Patna Full Bench), Spl Vi. Leave pdration granted by the Supreme Court 194 ITR (ST) 236 (SC). The s---rplus receipts of members over its expenses have been sought to be from Income tax on the principle of Mutuality. This principle is based on the premise that no men can make profit out of himself, but this

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Trust Bombay finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. (See Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO ). 10. As observed in Sirpur Paper Mills

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BANK MANAGEMENT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

charitable trust carries on any activity in the nature of business, trade or commerce, in the actual course of fulfilling its objectives, the income from such business, should not exceed the limit defined in sub-clause (ii) to the proviso. *Para 153+” “Section 11(4) applies to cases where the business undertaking itself is the property held by a trust

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BANK MANAGEMENT,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

charitable trust carries on any activity in the nature of business, trade or commerce, in the actual course of fulfilling its objectives, the income from such business, should not exceed the limit defined in sub-clause (ii) to the proviso. *Para 153+” “Section 11(4) applies to cases where the business undertaking itself is the property held by a trust

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF BANK MANAGEMENT,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2015-16 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and both the appeal filed by the assessee for AY

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

charitable trust carries on any activity in the nature of business, trade or commerce, in the actual course of fulfilling its objectives, the income from such business, should not exceed the limit defined in sub-clause (ii) to the proviso. *Para 153+” “Section 11(4) applies to cases where the business undertaking itself is the property held by a trust

MORAJ BUILDINGS CONCEPTS P.LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

section 40(a)(i), the amount remitted to non-resident would not be allowable deduction so long as tax is not deducted at source. Thus she made a disallowance of Rs.15,00,000/-. 3.2 In appeal, before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee contended that firstly only sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was paid to M/s Modern Line Distribution

INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhri

196 under section 234C of the Act. 2.2 The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the interest under section 234C of the Act to be calculated on shortfall in deposit of advance tax based on the returned income and not on the assessed income. 2.3 The Appellant prays that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete interest charged

POWER LOOM DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEM) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

charitable object, Appellant is entitled to exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming Assessing Officer's action to deny exemption by applying sec 2(15) without appreciating that appellant has not earned any profit in the Activity of Exhibitions. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that expenses incurred in holding Exhibitions

ELDER IT SOLUTIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 4, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

196 crore from M/s Black Stone Corporate Services Ltd, no other loan was received during the year. However, this was not examined by the AO in totality. It is stated by the assessee company that in respect of unsecured loans, the company has filed the following letters before the AO on 16.11.2011: a) Confirmation b) Acknowledgement of return of income