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

2(15) made by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/04/2016 would apply retrospectively for the impugned assessment year? d) Whether the activities of the Trust could be held as incidental for the attainment for the object of the Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions

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

2(15) made by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/04/2016 would apply retrospectively for the impugned assessment year? d) Whether the activities of the Trust could be held as incidental for the attainment for the object of the Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions

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

2(15) made by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/04/2016 would apply retrospectively for the impugned assessment year? d) Whether the activities of the Trust could be held as incidental for the attainment for the object of the Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions

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

2(15) made by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/04/2016 would apply retrospectively for the impugned assessment year? d) Whether the activities of the Trust could be held as incidental for the attainment for the object of the Trust and applicability of section 11(4A) of the Act? The findings of the CIT(A) on the aforesaid questions

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

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

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

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

DAHISAR SPORTS FOUDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) (I), MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7046/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dahisar Sports Foundation Ito (Exemptions)-(1), Dahisar Sports Foundation Ground, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, बनाम/ Opp. Viday Mandir School, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. C. S. Road, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatd 3769 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 31.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 09.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.09.2016 & Pertains To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1.1 The Learned Commissioner Of Income - Tax (Appeals) - 1, Mumbai, ["Ld. C1T (A)"] Erred In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. In Denying The 2 Dahisar Sports Foundation Vs. Ito (E) Benefit Of Exemption U/S. 11 Of The Income - Tax Act, 1961 ["The Act"] To The Appellant. 1.2 The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. In Holding That The Case Of The Appellant Was Covered By The Proviso To Section 2 (15) Of The Act. 1.3 It Is Submitted That In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, No Denial Of Exemption Was Called For. 2 Without Prejudice To The Above, In The Alternative, Assuming - But Not Admitting - That Some Addition Was Called For, The Computation Of The Same Is Not In Accordance With The Law, Is Arbitrary & Excessive.

trust is to promote the sports and games. The assessee has accordingly claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Income Tax Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer referred to the applicability of amended provisions of section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act w.e.f 01.04.2009. Seeking asseessee's response in this regard, the assessing officer proceeded

LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

220(2) of the Act for late payment of the said fees. 7. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lawmen Concepts Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CPC – TDS in ITA No. 5140 to 5143/Mum/2018 dated 10.01.2020 for Asst Year

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

220(2) of the Act for late payment of the said fees. 7. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lawmen Concepts Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CPC – TDS in ITA No. 5140 to 5143/Mum/2018 dated 10.01.2020 for Asst Year

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

220(2) of the Act for late payment of the said fees. 7. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lawmen Concepts Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CPC – TDS in ITA No. 5140 to 5143/Mum/2018 dated 10.01.2020 for Asst Year

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

220(2) of the Act for late payment of the said fees. 7. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra in view of the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Lawmen Concepts Pvt Ltd vs DCIT CPC – TDS in ITA No. 5140 to 5143/Mum/2018 dated 10.01.2020 for Asst Year

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