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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

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

197,79,27,500, and, for the assessment year 2012- 13, was Rs 25,37,00,000. The question really is whether the amounts so spent by the assessee trust will be treated as permissible application of the trust income, and, accordingly, will be the assessee be eligible for tax exemption, under section 11, in respect of that income. Facts

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

197,79,27,500, and, for the assessment year 2012- 13, was Rs 25,37,00,000. The question really is whether the amounts so spent by the assessee trust will be treated as permissible application of the trust income, and, accordingly, will be the assessee be eligible for tax exemption, under section 11, in respect of that income. Facts

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

197,79,27,500, and, for the assessment year 2012- 13, was Rs 25,37,00,000. The question really is whether the amounts so spent by the assessee trust will be treated as permissible application of the trust income, and, accordingly, will be the assessee be eligible for tax exemption, under section 11, in respect of that income. Facts

SHREE DADAR DIGAMER JAIN MUMUKSHO MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Dadar Digamber Jain The Cit (Exemption), Mumukshu Mandal, Ward-2(3), 271/293, 271/293, Vs. Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Road, Opp: Shivaji Park, P.O. Dadar (West) Mumbai-400028. Pan : Aacts8044A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.N. Shah For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 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.Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 05-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

197/- Income Additions to total income: Unutilised set aside funds w.r.t. 40,00,000/- FY. 2017-18 Unutilised set aside funds w.r.t. 35,66,540/- 75,66,540/- FY. 2016-17 Assessed Total Income 90,03,737/- 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 05-03-2025, upheld

ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

charitable institution and filed its return filed its return of income on 04.01.2022 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The return of income 04.01.2022 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The return of income 04.01.2022 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment for filed by the assessee

THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIR. OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPITION)-RG.-2, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

197], is as follows ; The objects of the university shall be to disseminate, create and preserve knowledge and , understanding *by teaching, research 'extension and service and by effective demonstration and influence of its corporate life on society in general, and in particular the objects shall be – (1) to carry out its responsibility of creation, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri

charitable purpose within the meaning of proviso provided in Section 2(15) of the act, subsequent to the amendment brought therein. He submitted that the Ld.AO was also of the opinion that, since assessee did not maintain separate books of account in respect of such activities, the second condition under section 11(4A) stand violated. The Ld.AO thus treated

ACIT (EXEMPTION) - 1(1), MUMBAI vs. GOREGAON SPORTS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

197 Taxman 170 (Delhi), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court also held that the adjustment of deficit of current year against income of subsequent years would amount to application of income of trust for charitable purposes in subsequent years within the meaning of section

ACIT (EXEMPTION) - 1(1), MUMBAI vs. GOREGAON SPORTS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am

197 Taxman 170 (Delhi), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court also held that the adjustment of deficit of current year against income of subsequent years would amount to application of income of trust for charitable purposes in subsequent years within the meaning of section

ACHARYA JIYALAL VASANT SANGEET NIKETAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO(EXEM.)-II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

trust and there is no profit motive. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds and assuming without conceding that the income from recording studio amounts to business income, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that section 11(4A) is not attracted since the said activity is incidental to the main objects and in effect, there is a sufficient compliance

ACIT 25(3), MUMBAI vs. BHAVARLAL C. SUTHAR, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Years:2007-08 Acit-25(3), Shri Bhavarlal C.Suthar C-11, R. No.308, C/4/705, Sai Krupa Chsl, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Sector-7, Kandivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400067 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaops8548P

197 CTR (St.) 1 has been discussed. Totality of facts clearly indicates that since the amount had already been paid during the year, therefore, section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is not attracted. In view of these facts, we affirm the stand of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2.3. So far as, the claimed deduction of Rs.25

THE PATHARE PRABHU CHARITIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu

section 11(4A). 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the transaction with the caterer was in substance a mere passive letting of property, which could in no way be regarded as a business. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in going by the nomenclature of the income, and did not appreciate that the mere nomenclature

THE PATHARE PRABHU CHARITIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu

section 11(4A). 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the transaction with the caterer was in substance a mere passive letting of property, which could in no way be regarded as a business. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in going by the nomenclature of the income, and did not appreciate that the mere nomenclature

ESS ISMAIL MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT 13(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

Charitable Trust [2009] 308 ITR 1611 has held as under : "In this case, it is accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the fact situation in all the assessment years is the same. According to him, if the fact situation changes then the revenue can certainly prefer an appeal notwithstanding the fact that for some years

ESSA I MERCHANT,MUMBAI vs. JCIT RG 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

Charitable Trust [2009] 308 ITR 1611 has held as under : "In this case, it is accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the fact situation in all the assessment years is the same. According to him, if the fact situation changes then the revenue can certainly prefer an appeal notwithstanding the fact that for some years