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

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

trust registered as a charitable organization, filed appeals against orders denying exemption under Section 11. The primary contention revolved around whether the assessee's activities, including conducting music classes and concerts, qualified as charitable purposes under Section 2(15

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

section 2(15), ie, relief of the poor, education or\nmantical relief. Consequently, where the purpose of a trust er institution is\nrelief of the poor, education er medical relief, it will constitute 'charitable

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

charitable trust. Appeals were filed against orders denying exemption under Section 11 for various assessment years. The primary issue revolves around whether the assessee's activities, including conducting music classes and concerts, qualify as educational purposes under Section 2(15

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

trust registered as a charitable organization. The appeals concern several assessment years, including 2009-10, 2014-15, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The primary issue revolves around the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, specifically whether the assessee's activities, including imparting music education and organizing concerts, qualify as charitable purposes under Section 2(15

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;]]\nSection 13(8)\n(8) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude any income from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof if the provisions of the first proviso to clause (15) of section 2

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

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 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 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