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

charitable purposes other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by such trust or institution. (3) For the purposes of this section, "anonymous donation" means any voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section

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

charitable purposes other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution run by such trust or institution. (3) For the purposes of this section, "anonymous donation" means any voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

section 11(1)(d) of the Act; (ii) receipt of capital nature cannot be deemed to be income covered u/s 2(24) of the Act; (iii) the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in appellant trust's own case in preceding years have already held that the corpus contribution received by the appellant trust from settlors in terms of trust deed cannot

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

SHREE JAIN SWETAMBER DEHARSHAR UPSHRAYA TRUST,THANE vs. ASST CIT PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K.Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Jain Swetamber Acit, Palghar Circle, Deharshar Upshraya Trust Palghar बनाम/ C/O. Anoopchandji Karnava, T Vs. Main Road, Dahanu Town Dahanu Road, Dist: Thane ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaets4024L

trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes. It was submitted that receipt cannot be taxed as income unless it is an income within meaning of Section 2(24)(iia

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

trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes. It was submitted that receipt cannot be taxed as income unless it is an income within meaning of Section 2(24)(iia

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

iia) it has been laid down that any asset which does not form part of permissible investment under section 11(5) shall be disposed of within one year from the end of the previous year in which such asset is acquired or by 31-3-1993, whichever is later. In the present case, the assessee was required to dispose

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), 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

iia) it has been laid down that any asset which does not form part of permissible investment under section 11(5) shall be disposed of within one year from the end of the previous year in which such asset is acquired or by 31-3-1993, whichever is later. In the present case, the assessee was required to dispose

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

24,751/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS therefore notice u/s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”) was issued on 13.09.2011 which was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee on 24.02.2012 and 30.05.2012. The assessee is the Trust which

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

24 to 29 are not relevant for the present purposes) 30. The next issue raised by the learned Commissioner is with respect to the alleged failure of the Assessing Officer in not examining whether investments held by the assessee are in conformity with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, and in not examining whether the assessee

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

24, Homi Mody Street Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 001. PAN:AAATJ 0095 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee by : Shri Dilip J. Thakkar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Alok Johri-DR सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date of Hearing : 19.01.2016 सुनवाई सुनवाई

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

24 to 29 are not relevant for the present purposes) 30. The next issue raised by the learned Commissioner is with respect to the alleged failure of the Assessing Officer in not examining whether investments held by the assessee are in conformity with the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act, and in not examining whether the assessee

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

CREDIT GUARNTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)_1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the CIT(A) against the aforesaid Assessment Order which was dismissed, vide order dated 30/09/2024. Now, being aggrieved the Assessee-trust has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

section 11(1)(d) of the Act. (ii) receipt of capital nature cannot be (ii) receipt of capital nature cannot deemed to be income covered u/s be deemed to be income 2(24) of the Act; covered u/s 2(24) of the Act. (iii) the corpus contribution received by (iii) the corpus contribution the appellant trust from settlors in received