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 and religious purpose, has incurred religious expenditure which is less than 5% of the total expenses of the Trust. In such a case, the trust may be eligible for certificate u/s 80G of the Act and at the same time would not be liable to be taxed for the anonymous donations received by virtue of Section 115BBC

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

charitable and religious purpose, has incurred religious expenditure which is less than 5% of the total expenses of the Trust. In such a case, the trust may be eligible for certificate u/s 80G of the Act and at the same time would not be liable to be taxed for the anonymous donations received by virtue of Section 115BBC

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

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

Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed- violation u/s 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to denial of exemption u/s 11 on total income of assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust (2015) 230

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

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

Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed- violation u/s 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to denial of exemption u/s 11 on total income of assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust (2015) 230

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

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

Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed- violation u/s 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to denial of exemption u/s 11 on total income of assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust (2015) 230

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

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

Section 11(5) is liable to be taxed- violation u/s 13(1)(d) does not tantamount to denial of exemption u/s 11 on total income of assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Orpat Charitable Trust (2015) 230

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

Charitable Trust or Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself

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

Charitable Trust or Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself

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

Charitable Trust or Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself

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

Charitable Trust or Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself

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

Charitable Trust or Trust of any other kind. claim for Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act cannot be entertained. The Registration u/s 12AA has also been cancelled by DIT (Exemption) Mumbai in December 2011, Against the same the assessee has filed an appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai which is yet to be decided. The assessee has claimed itself

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

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

THE BOMBAY SOCIETY OF THE FRANCISCAN CLARIST SISTERS OF THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

230) of section 10 of the Act to provide that the Assessing Officer shall not allow the application of any accumulated income, as referred to in the proposed Explanation 3, to be credited or paid to any trust or institution under the first or second regime, as referred to in clause (d) of proposed Explanation 4 to the third proviso

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST. PAUL,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM.WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Roman Catholic Church Of St. Income Tax Officer (Exem.), Paul Ward 2(2) St Paul Church, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 400014 (Pan : Aaatr2742L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in 9 Roman Catholic Church of St. Paul AY 2023-24 sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (230) of section 10 [shall be deemed to be the income of such person

SHRI CHINTAMANI PARSHWANATH SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK JAIN SANGH,MUMBAI vs. EXEM. WARD 2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (230) of section 10 [shall be deemed to be the income of such person of the previous year in which it is so applied

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

230) 'charitable purpose' contained of the Act if they carry or business\nis a question of fact which will in section 2(15). Hence, such entities will\nnot on commercial activities. Whether such be decided based t be eligible\nfor exemption an entity is carrying on an activity in the nature of trade,\ncommerce Ion the nature, scope, extent

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

230) 'charitable purpose' contained of the Act if they carry or business\nis a question of fact which will in section 2(15). Hence, such entities will\nnot on commercial activities. Whether such be decided based t be eligible\nfor exemption an entity is carrying on an activity in the nature of trade,\ncommerce Ion the nature, scope, extent

M/S. FREE TRADE UNION MULTIPURPOSE PROJECT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)- 1(3), MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & G. Manjunatha, Am

section 13(1)(c) still corpus donation were not taxable. b) R.B. Shreeram Religious & Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (SC) 233 ITR 0053 c) CIT vs. Indore Table Tennis Trust 227 ITR 0836 (MP) d) CIT vs. Bengal Mills & Stemers PRE. Association 140 ITR 0586 (Call) e) CIT vs. Vanchi Trust & Anr. 127 ITR 0227 (Kerala) f) CIT vs. Bal Utkarsh