BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)- 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

charitable purpose” (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act.\nA. General test under Section 2(15)\n\nA. 1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself in any trade, commerce or business, or provide service in relation thereto for any consideration (“cess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 2(15) of the 1.T. Act and even if the assessee's objects are considered charitable, they will fall in the category of the Saurashtra Trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 2(15) of the 1.T. Act and even if the assessee's objects are considered charitable, they will fall in the category of the Saurashtra Trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) of the Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Act, only the business income of the charitable trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) of the Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Act, only the business income of the charitable trust

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) of the Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Act, only the business income of the charitable trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) of the Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Act, only the business income of the charitable trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) of the Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Act, only the business income of the charitable trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION)- 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 2(15) of the Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Act, only the business income of the charitable trust

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

charitable activities and (2) that he has invoked proviso to section 2(15) of the Act also. 14. The Ld. A.R. for the assessee challenging the denial of benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act contended inter-alia that proviso to section 12 M/s. Credit Guarantee Fund Trust

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2)(l) & (m), 19, 21(1) of the Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act of 2004 to show that there were several religious objects, duties and obligations on the assessee Trust and thus the assessee Trust was existing both for charitable and religious purpose. 15. The Ld.Sr.Counsel further submitted that, whether Shri Sai Baba was a Hindu or Muslim

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2)(l) & (m), 19, 21(1) of the Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act of 2004 to show that there were several religious objects, duties and obligations on the assessee Trust and thus the assessee Trust was existing both for charitable and religious purpose. 15. The Ld.Sr.Counsel further submitted that, whether Shri Sai Baba was a Hindu or Muslim

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2)(l) & (m), 19, 21(1) of the Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act of 2004 to show that there were several religious objects, duties and obligations on the assessee Trust and thus the assessee Trust was existing both for charitable and religious purpose. 15. The Ld.Sr.Counsel further submitted that, whether Shri Sai Baba was a Hindu or Muslim

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

2)(l) & (m), 19, 21(1) of the Shri Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act of 2004 to show that there were several religious objects, duties and obligations on the assessee Trust and thus the assessee Trust was existing both for charitable and religious purpose. 15. The Ld.Sr.Counsel further submitted that, whether Shri Sai Baba was a Hindu or Muslim

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NELA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (Exemption) – 2(1) V. Neia Trust Room No. 608, 6Th Floor C/O. Ecgc Of India Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill 10Th Floor, Express Tower Mumbai - 400026 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Pan: Aaatn9999F (Appellant) (Respondent)

trust was registered u/s 12AA of the Act which was not withdrawn by authority who granted the registration. The Ld.Representative of the Assessee has contented that AO has no right to withdraw the claim of exemption by discussing the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act. Section 2(15) is hereby reproduced as under- "Charitable

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

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable activity claimed by it is in the domain of advancement of general public utility' only. The profit motive behind such business, commerce or trade 'activity is not required to be separately examined and proved for applicability of proviso to section 2(15), The specific amendment by way of proviso to section 2(15) w.e.f. A.Y. 2009-10 does

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable activity claimed by it is in the domain of advancement of general public utility' only. The profit motive behind such business, commerce or trade 'activity is not required to be separately examined and proved for applicability of proviso to section 2(15), The specific amendment by way of proviso to section 2(15) w.e.f. A.Y. 2009-10 does