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

226) (SC) “13. Lastly, it is immaterial that the relevant form prescribed under Income-tax Rules, at the relevant time (i.e., before 1-4- 2007), provided for set off of MAT credit balance against the amount of tax plus interest i.e., after the computation of interest under section 234B. This was directly contrary to a plain reading of section 115JAA

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have made submissions

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

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

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

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

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

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

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

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Charitable DCIT, Circle-26(1), Trust, Kautilya Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Namnalal Mumbai-400051. Vs. Bajaj Marg, 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAATR1693Q Assessee-अपीलाथ" / Appellant Revenue- ""यथ" / Respondent : Assessee by : Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv. & Mr. M.A. Gohel, CA Revenue by : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17.12.2025 : Date of Pronouncement

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

226 ITR 625/92 Taxman 541 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 in so far the related to Section 27(iii), (iiia) and (iiib) which redefined the expression 'owner of house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory Assessment year

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

226 ITR 625/92 Taxman 541 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 in so far the related to Section 27(iii), (iiia) and (iiib) which redefined the expression 'owner of house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory Assessment year

DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 31/12/2007. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- “1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee trust is not covered by the principle of mutuality thereby

DDIT (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 31/12/2007. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- “1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee trust is not covered by the principle of mutuality thereby

MATUNGA GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 31/12/2007. In this appeal, Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:- “1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee trust is not covered by the principle of mutuality thereby

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

charitable trust), but is not registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence the persons/individuals for whom the trust is created do not have any "vested share" in the income of the trust, therefore, the question of the share being indeterminate or unknown does not arise. The question is a logical one but this becomes a Trust

M/S FEDERATION OF FREIGHT FORWARDERS ASSOCIATIONS IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no.1 of the assessee is allowed and additions amounting to Rs

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Federation Of Freight Forwarders Associations, 311/313, Mahinder Chambers, W.T. Patil Marg, Opp. Dukes Factory, Chembur, Mumbai-400071 Pan: Aaatf0039J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(3), Piramal Chambers 4Th Floor, Dr. S.S. Road, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi Respondent By : Sh. Indira Adakil, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

3 ITA No. 710/Mum/2020- M/s Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations Therefore, where industry or trade associations claim both to be charitable institutions as well as mutual organizations and their activities are restricted to contributions from and participation of only their members, these would fall under the purview of the proviso to section 2(15) owing to the principle of mutuality

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NELA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (Exemption) – 2(1) V. Neia Trust Room No. 608, 6Th Floor C/O. Ecgc Of India Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill 10Th Floor, Express Tower Mumbai - 400026 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Pan: Aaatn9999F (Appellant) (Respondent)

3 and 4 above. (iii) Expected outcome of devolvement and settlement of claims for exceeding insurance charged. Page No. | 7 NEIA Trust 5. On the captioned subject, your kind attention is drawn to the Order of Hon. Mumbai ITAT, "B" Bench dated 18.01.2019 in appellant's own case for Assessment Year 2010-11 (Paper Book Page

ITO 17 (2)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAHAKALP AROGYA PRATISTHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Supreme Court Due To Low Tax Effect."

226, Nariman Point PAN : AAATM2595C Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Mahendra Gohel Department by Ms. Usha Gaikwad Date of Hearing 25.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2021 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-6 dated 23.08.2019 and pertains to Assessment Year

ITO, 17(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. SHISHIR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Charitable Trust ....……………….Respondent Bajaj Bhavan, 2nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, 226, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400001 [PAN: AAATS7880C] Appearances: T.S Khalsa for the appellant Mahendra Gohel for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: : January 21, 2021 Date of pronouncement : April 15, 2021 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer

PRABODHAN GOREGAON,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) - 1, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6490/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Prabhodhan Goregaon बिाम/ Ito(E)-Ii(1),Mumbai Prabhodhan Kridabhavan Marg, V. Siddharth Nagar, Goregoan(W), Mumbai-400014 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaatp4398J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the expression "any other object of general public utility" in Section-2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 would prima facie include all objects which promotes the welfare of the general public. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the athletic & sports activities undertaken by the appellant trust