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

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

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

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

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

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

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

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

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

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

Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions and the submission of the Appellant with respect to each of the issues are discussed as under — a.) Whether Activities of the Appellant could be considered as 'charitable purpose'? Finding of the CIT(A): The CIT(A) held that

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

Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions and the submission of the Appellant with respect to each of the issues are discussed as under — a.) Whether Activities of the Appellant could be considered as 'charitable purpose'? Finding of the CIT(A): The CIT(A) held that

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

Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions and the submission of the Appellant with respect to each of the issues are discussed as under — a.) Whether Activities of the Appellant could be considered as 'charitable purpose'? Finding of the CIT(A): The CIT(A) held that

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

Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions and the submission of the Appellant with respect to each of the issues are discussed as under — a.) Whether Activities of the Appellant could be considered as 'charitable purpose'? Finding of the CIT(A): The CIT(A) held that

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

Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions and the submission of the Appellant with respect to each of the issues are discussed as under — a.) Whether Activities of the Appellant could be considered as 'charitable purpose'? Finding of the CIT(A): The CIT(A) held that

ITO EXEMPTION 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VAIBHAV MEDICAL AND EDUCATION FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailito (Exemption) – 2(4), Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400026 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S Vaibhav Medical & Education Foundation, C-1, Aditya Birla Centre, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400030, Maharashtra Pan – Aaatv3207A

Charitable Trust, reported in (2020) 180 ITD 735 (Mum-Trib). From the perusal of both the decisions, relied upon by the learned AR we find that there is no reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities (supra), which has been considered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

ALL INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC TRADE AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita No. 1387/Mum/2020 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2013-14) आमकय अऩीर सं./ Ita No. 1705/Mum/2019 (यनधाायण वषा / Assessment Years 2014-15) All India Photographic Trade & The Income Tax Officer(E) Industry Association Ward 1(1), Mumbai 1 S T C-3/6, Taj Building, 210, फनाभ/ Floor, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Vs. Mumbai (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaaa0042K अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Kirit Sanghvi, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.03.2021

220 city chapters and 20,000 members, it can safely be held to be for the benefit of a particular section of the public and not for any specified individual. Accordingly, the view taken by the lower authorities that as the assessee trust was set up for providing facilities to a limited group of people and not for the benefit

CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATON OF INDIA ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (EXEM)-1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodconfederation Of Real Estate Acit (Exemption)-1(1), Developers Association Of India, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 5Th Floor, Phd House, Vs. Parel, Mumbai 400 012 4/2, Siri Insitutional Area, New Delhi-110016

220 city chapters and 20,000 members, it can safely be held to be for the benefit of a particular section of the public and not for any specified individual. Accordingly, the view taken by the lower authorities that as the assessee trust was set up for providing facilities to a limited group of people and not for the benefit

CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)- 3 , MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our observations recorded hereinabove

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodconfederation Of Real Estate Acit (Exemption)-1(1), Developers Association Of India, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 5Th Floor, Phd House, Vs. Parel, Mumbai 400 012 4/2, Siri Insitutional Area, New Delhi-110016

220 city chapters and 20,000 members, it can safely be held to be for the benefit of a particular section of the public and not for any specified individual. Accordingly, the view taken by the lower authorities that as the assessee trust was set up for providing facilities to a limited group of people and not for the benefit

ACIT 25 (2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. ANJANA LAXMIDAS VORA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – 25 (2) Room Number 220, Second Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Floor, Vora Kautilya Bhavan 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Bandra Kurla Complex Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv0293L Co 70/Mumbai/2021 (Assessment Years 2016 – 17) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Srimati Anjana Laxmidas Tax – 25 (2) Vora Room Number 220, Second 1202 – C, Elita, N Dutta Floor, Vs. Marg, Behind D N Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Police Station, Mumbai – 53 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E) Mumbai – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent)

220, SECOND 1202 – C, ELITA, N DUTTA FLOOR, VS. MARG, BEHIND D N NAGAR KAUTILYA BHAVAN POLICE STATION, MUMBAI – 53 BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E) MUMBAI – 51 (Appellant) (Respondent) 1 | P a g e Assessee by : Shri Rajan Vora, CA Revenue by : Shri Sunil Jha CIT DR Date of hearing: 22/07/2022 Date of pronouncement: 17/10/2022

POOR BOX CHARITY FUND DR R.N. COOPER HOSPITAL JUHU,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Poor Box Charity Fund Dr. R.N. Cit(Appeals), Delhi Cooper Hospital Juhu Vs R.N. Cooper Hospital N S Road No. 1, Villeparle West, Mumbai-400056. Pan: Aactp 2833 J (Appellant) (Respondent)

220/- and also received Rs. 25,52,672/- in the form of bank interest. Out of the receipt, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 33,00,588/- claiming as expenditure incurred for the object of the assessee trust. The assessing officer stated that as provided in section 12A of the Act any charitable

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\"\nenvisaged in Section 2(15) of the Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under Section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under Section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

PADMASHREE DR. D.Y.PATIL UNIVERSITY ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT INCOME TAX CC-7(1) , MUMBAI

220, it was held\nthat the documents recovered by the authorities will have no evidentiary\nvalue unless it is corroborated with any other independent evidence, i.e.,\nuncorroborated loose papers found in the search cannot be taken as sole\nbasis for determination of undisclosed income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court\nhas held in the case of CBI vs. V C Shukla