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

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

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

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

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

24. The Ld.Sr.Counsel had pointed out to us that, Section 2(m) of the Sai Baba Trust Act provided that any words or expression, not expressly defined, shall have the meaning as assigned in Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is noted that, the word ‘Temple’ is not defined in the Trust Act, but the same is defined in Section

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

24,36,540 General Public utility. Cannot receipts. 3,98,146 be considered as education as persons watched the no systematic formal show throughout the education is involved. It is year. nature of business. Hit by first proviso to section 2(15). 11 Rent received from the 1,62,90,000 --- As assessee's activities and sun and sand hotel

DATTATRAY N SAWANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 2360/Mum/2013 is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

24, Hissa Nos 4(Part) and 6(Part) and City Survey No. 68(Part) ) for Rs.4,50,000/- in the year 2000 on which school is run by Vatsalabhai Dattatray Sawant Charitable Trust on this plot of land . The Vatsalabhai Dattatray Sawant Charitable Trust owns another plot Bearing No.27 , Bhatwadi , Village Kirol, Ghatkopar now in Taluka Kurla, Mumbai( Survey

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

24 -32 of CIT(A)'s Order) The Ld CIT(A) by relying on judicial decisions discussed in his order, wherein proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was invoked, held that the assessee's case come within the ambit of the proviso. (Pg. 32 -38 of CIT(A)'s Order). Further, Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee

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

24 -32 of CIT(A)'s Order) The Ld CIT(A) by relying on judicial decisions discussed in his order, wherein proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was invoked, held that the assessee's case come within the ambit of the proviso. (Pg. 32 -38 of CIT(A)'s Order). Further, Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee

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

24 -32 of CIT(A)'s Order) The Ld CIT(A) by relying on judicial decisions discussed in his order, wherein proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was invoked, held that the assessee's case come within the ambit of the proviso. (Pg. 32 -38 of CIT(A)'s Order). Further, Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee

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

24 -32 of CIT(A)'s Order) The Ld CIT(A) by relying on judicial decisions discussed in his order, wherein proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was invoked, held that the assessee's case come within the ambit of the proviso. (Pg. 32 -38 of CIT(A)'s Order). Further, Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee

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

24 -32 of CIT(A)'s Order) The Ld CIT(A) by relying on judicial decisions discussed in his order, wherein proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was invoked, held that the assessee's case come within the ambit of the proviso. (Pg. 32 -38 of CIT(A)'s Order). Further, Ld CIT(A) held that the assessee

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

2) of Section 32 specifically spells out that the regulations may provide for the form and the manner in which an application for recognition is to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Central Act. 39. The question therefore is as to whether the National Council was within its statutory competence to prescribe a condition precedent

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

2) of Section 32 specifically spells out that the regulations may provide for the form and the manner in which an application for recognition is to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Central Act. 39. The question therefore is as to whether the National Council was within its statutory competence to prescribe a condition precedent

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, hence not entitled for benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act”, are not sustainable, hence set aside. Ground No. 2 is determined in favour of the assessee. Ground No.3 21. During the year under consideration the assessee trust has claimed provision for guarantee claims to the tune of Rs.13,14,84,00,000/-. During the year under

JAMSETJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

charitable trust in August 1975 under section 12A(a) of the ITA. In August 1975 it had filed prescribed Form 10A as required under section 12A(a) of the ITA. Vide communication dated 15.03.1976 the Trust was informed that the said application had been entered at Sr No TR/10925 in the Register of Applications under section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

charitable trust in August 1975 under section 12A(a) of the ITA. In August 1975 it had filed prescribed Form 10A as required under section 12A(a) of the ITA. Vide communication dated 15.03.1976 the Trust was informed that the said application had been entered at Sr No TR/10925 in the Register of Applications under section

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

charitable trust in August 1975 under section 12A(a) of the ITA. In August 1975 it had filed prescribed Form 10A as required under section 12A(a) of the ITA. Vide communication dated 15.03.1976 the Trust was informed that the said application had been entered at Sr No TR/10925 in the Register of Applications under section

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

charitable trust in August 1975 under section 12A(a) of the ITA. In August 1975 it had filed prescribed Form 10A as required under section 12A(a) of the ITA. Vide communication dated 15.03.1976 the Trust was informed that the said application had been entered at Sr No TR/10925 in the Register of Applications under section

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

24. With regard to applicability of section 13(1)(d) and section 13(2)(h), we have while adjudicating the appeal for AY 2014-15 already held that these cannot be denied. The facts for AY 2018-19 are identical and the AO/CIT(A) for this year have given similar reasons for denying the benefit of section