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 Organization with M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under section 12A of the Act vide registration no.TR/10925, dated 15th March 1976, and with Charity Commissioner under registration no.E–5998(Mumbai). The assessee had also been issued certificate under section

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 Organization with M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under section 12A of the Act vide registration no.TR/10925, dated 15th March 1976, and with Charity Commissioner under registration no.E–5998(Mumbai). The assessee had also been issued certificate under section

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 Organization with M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under section 12A of the Act vide registration no.TR/10925, dated 15th March 1976, and with Charity Commissioner under registration no.E–5998(Mumbai). The assessee had also been issued certificate under section

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 Organization with M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under section 12A of the Act vide registration no.TR/10925, dated 15th March 1976, and with Charity Commissioner under registration no.E–5998(Mumbai). The assessee had also been issued certificate under section

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 Organization with M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under section 12A of the Act vide registration no.TR/10925, dated 15th March 1976, and with Charity Commissioner under registration no.E–5998(Mumbai). The assessee had also been issued certificate under section

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 Organization with M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Tata Trust Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai, under section 12A of the Act vide registration no.TR/10925, dated 15th March 1976, and with Charity Commissioner under registration no.E–5998(Mumbai). The assessee had also been issued certificate under section

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

234D and u/s 244A Issue demand notice & Challan accordingly.” 8. Accordingly the assessee withdrew the appeal filed before the Tribunal against the order passed under section 263 for reason that the AO while passing order under section 144 r.w.s. 263 has given relief to the assessee assessing the income at Rs. Nil. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not go into

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarwns Global Services Private Vs Assessment Unit, National Faceless Limited, Mumbai Assessment Centre, New Delhi Pl-10/11, Gate No.4, Godrej- Boyce Complex, Pirojshanagar, L.B.S.Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400 079 Pan: Aaacw2598L Appellant Respondent

234D of the Act: 12. On the fact and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute at any time before or at the time of the appeal, to enable accordance with law.” 2. The assessee

NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE INVESTOR PROTECTION FUND TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stands dismissed

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

234D of the Act of Rs.3,73,828/- and not doing so is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have allowed ground relating

NAVI MUMBAI MERCHANT'S GYMKHANA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION) -II (2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Navi Mumbai Merchant’S Adit (Exemption)-Ii(2) Gymkhana Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Plot No. 49/50, Sector -14, Mumbai-400012. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 Pan No. Aaatn2965P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pradeep Kapasi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2018

234D. 3. We begin with the 1st ground of appeal. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant filed its return of income for the impugned Navi Mumbai Merchant’s Gymkhana assessment year on 15.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer (AO) came to a finding that the entry to the club is not open

NAVI MUMBAI MERCHANT'S GYMKHANA,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION) -II (2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Navi Mumbai Merchant’S Adit (Exemption)-Ii(2) Gymkhana Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug Plot No. 49/50, Sector -14, Mumbai-400012. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 Pan No. Aaatn2965P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Pradeep Kapasi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2018

234D. 3. We begin with the 1st ground of appeal. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant filed its return of income for the impugned Navi Mumbai Merchant’s Gymkhana assessment year on 15.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer (AO) came to a finding that the entry to the club is not open

NATIONAL PAYMENTS CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

charitable and on the ground that the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was applicable. 2) The CIT(A) overlooked that the appellant was formed as a "Not for Profit Company" under section 25 of the Companies Act, 195h and was prohibited by its object clause from carrying on any activity on commercial basis

NATIONAL PAYMENTS CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

charitable and on the ground that the first proviso to section 2(15) of the Act was applicable. 2) The CIT(A) overlooked that the appellant was formed as a "Not for Profit Company" under section 25 of the Companies Act, 195h and was prohibited by its object clause from carrying on any activity on commercial basis

B P MARINE ACADEMY,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, ground no 6 is allowed in favour of the Assessee

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15

trust which is also registered with the DG Shipping and is a section 25 company and therefore, charitable and not hit by section 13(3) of the Act. The last amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- represented reimbursement to be recovered from the students towards counseling fees. None of the students are related to the Assessee under appeal. We therefore

CHARTERED FINANCE MANAGEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR2(1) (1) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalechartered Finance Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Management Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 201, Wakefield House, Mk Road, Churchgate Sprott Road, Ballard Mumbai – 400020. Estate, Mumbai – 400038

Section 234D of the Act 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of consultancy services, dealing in shares / stocks, power generation and distribution. The assessee has filed the return of income on 27.01.2016 for the A.Y 2010-11 disclosing a total income of Rs.2,75,63,870/- and the return

MANDKE FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT EXEMPTION-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 329/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Mandke Foundation V/S. Acit Exemptions-2, Plot No. 141, A Four बनाम Mumbai Bunglows, Rao Saheb Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Achyutrao Patwardhan Cumbala Hill, Mtnl Telli Marg, Andheri West, Phone Exchange Building, Maharashtra-400053 Pedder Road, Maharashtra-400026 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatm4557G Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

234D of the Act. In response to this notice, the assessee submitted the amount of Rs. 8,90,260/- should have been reduced from the extent of the object of the trust and should not be added to the total income as has been done by the Ld. AO. In case, the computation is revised as above the question