NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable institution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off against income of subsequent years by invoking section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." To this extent, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable institution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off against income of subsequent years by invoking section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." To this extent, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable institution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off against income of subsequent years by invoking section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961." To this extent, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have heard him on the aforesaid question of law as well

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FUND TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E)-II(2), NOW DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2(1)EXEMPTION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Charitable Trust as relied upon by the AO is distinguishable to the present case as in that case the trust has multiple objects whereas in the instant case the trust has only one object and thus there is no question of ambiguity. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to allow the claim

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEPTION) -CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable\ninstitution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off\nagainst income of subsequent years by invoking section 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961.\"\nTo this extent, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing\non behalf of the applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have\nheard him on the aforesaid question of law as well

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable\ninstitution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off\nagainst income of subsequent years by invoking section 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961.\"\nTo this extent, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing\non behalf of the applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have\nheard him on the aforesaid question of law as well

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable\ninstitution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off\nagainst income of subsequent years by invoking section 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961.\"\nTo this extent, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing\non behalf of the applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have\nheard him on the aforesaid question of law as well

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable\ninstitution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off\nagainst income of subsequent years by invoking section 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961.\"\nTo this extent, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing\non behalf of the applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have\nheard him on the aforesaid question of law as well

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

charitable\ninstitution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off\nagainst income of subsequent years by invoking section 11 of the\nIncome-tax Act, 1961.\"\nTo this extent, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing\non behalf of the applicant/appellant is correct. Therefore, we have\nheard him on the aforesaid question of law as well

R.D.TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-2(2) (NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSTT.CIT 17(3)), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.3 to 5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

234A of the Act. 3. Each ground is independent and without prejudice to the other.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessee is a public charitable trust registered with the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and holding a valid registration under Section

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Income tax Act. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer on account

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Income tax Act. P a g e | 3 ITA No. 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 Mumbra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the learned assessing officer on account