PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

245. On the basis of search and survey action on ABIL Group on 21st July 2017, the proceedings under section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') were initiated by the DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Mumbai in case of the Assessee u/s. 153A of the Act. Accordingly, assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 were completed by passing

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Charitable Trust registered under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, 1950. The Trust had obtained registration under section 12A of the Act on 10th December, 1990. However, the Trust surrendered the aforesaid registration vide letter dated 19th February, 2015.The Trust filed its return of income on 18th November, 2021 offering interest, dividend and other income to tax amounting to Rs.19

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

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

charitable purpose. 12. All these were the objects of the general public utility and would squarely fall under section 2 (15) of the Act. Profit making was neither the aim nor object of the Trust. It was not the principal activity. Merely because while carrying out the activities for the purpose of achieving the objects of the Trust, certain incidental

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

charitable purpose. 12. All these were the objects of the general public utility and would squarely fall under section 2 (15) of the Act. Profit making was neither the aim nor object of the Trust. It was not the principal activity. Merely because while carrying out the activities for the purpose of achieving the objects of the Trust, certain incidental

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

charitable purpose. 12. All these were the objects of the general public utility and would squarely fall under section 2 (15) of the Act. Profit making was neither the aim nor object of the Trust. It was not the principal activity. Merely because while carrying out the activities for the purpose of achieving the objects of the Trust, certain incidental

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

charitable purpose. CO No 42/Mum/20 ITA No. 2880/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 22 of 37 12. All these were the objects of the general public utility and would squarely fall under section 2 (15) of the Act. Profit making was neither the aim nor object of the Trust. It was not the principal activity. Merely because while carrying

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

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

MASINA HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. SALIL MISHRA- CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

section 186(7) of the Companies Act, 2013, it could not have been given interest free to the trust therefore, interest was charged at the market rate. The funds were obtained for the charitable need of the trust and there was no intention of taking loans for the purpose of benefiting to its related party. The assessee provided a detailed

MASINA HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, SALIL MISHRA, MUMBAI

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

section 186(7) of the Companies Act, 2013, it could not have been given interest free to the trust therefore, interest was charged at the market rate. The funds were obtained for the charitable need of the trust and there was no intention of taking loans for the purpose of benefiting to its related party. The assessee provided a detailed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OTTERS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

charitable in nature then, is it still to be seen whether the object and activity for which it has been granted registration, has any element of trade, commerce or business. 5.3. Before deciding this issue, it is incumbent to understand whether the activities of the assessee for which it has been granted registration u/s.12A per se falls in the category

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OTTERS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

charitable in nature then, is it still to be seen whether the object and activity for which it has been granted registration, has any element of trade, commerce or business. 5.3. Before deciding this issue, it is incumbent to understand whether the activities of the assessee for which it has been granted registration u/s.12A per se falls in the category

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

245/- should not be disallowed as per the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Please note that in case of non-compliance within stipulated time, penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

245/- should not be disallowed as per the provisions of section 11(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Please note that in case of non-compliance within stipulated time, penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice

MASINA HOSPITAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPITONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Masina Hospital Trust, Cit(Exemptions), 1 Masina Hospital, Sant Satva Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Vs. Marg, Byculla, Hill Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Mumbai-400027. Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Mumballa Hill, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatm 0786 D Appellant Respondent

section 186(7) of the Companies Act, 2013 could not have been given interest free to the trust therefore, e been given interest free to the trust therefore, e been given interest free to the trust therefore, interest was charged at the market rate. The funds were obtained interest was charged at the market rate. The funds were obtained interest

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee for all the years\nunder consideration stands allowed

charitable purpose within the meaning of proviso\nprovided in Section 2(15) of the act, subsequent to the amendment\nbrought therein. He submitted that the Ld.AO was also of the\nopinion that, since assessee did not maintain separate books of\naccount in respect of such activities, the second condition under\nsection 11(4A) stand violated. The Ld.AO thus treated