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

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

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

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

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

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

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

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

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

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

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

Charitable Trust (2015) 230 TAXMAN 0066 (Gujarat) ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 (v) Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust (2001) 249 ITR 0533 (vi) Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Working Women's Forum (2014) 365 ITR 0353 (Madras) (vii) IILM Foundation Vs Asst. Director of Income

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

section 1(1), the income which is applied towards the objects of the trust cannot be subject to tax. I, therefore, delete the addition of Rs.1,69,65,500/- made by the Assessing Officer. Ground nos. 2 & 3 are allowed.” 2.4. The ld. counsel for the assessee contended that the claim of the assessee also gets support from the following

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

2) Bill, 2009 was as under: "Further as per clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the institutions or funds to which the donations are made have to be approved by the Commissioner of Income-tax in accordance with the rules prescribed in rule 11AA of the Income-tax Rules

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

trust.” 7. Section 43B of the Act which reads as under: - Certain deductions to be only on actual payment. 43B. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of- (a) ……. 7 A.Y. 2017-18 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd (b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

Trust and Reliance Foundation is eligible spending\nwithin the meaning of section 135 r.w. rule 7 of Company's Act\n2013?\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3 3 1, MUMBAI vs. JAMNAGAR UTILITIES AND POWER PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed\npartly

Trust and Reliance Foundation is eligible spending\nwithin the meaning of section 135 r.w. rule 7 of Company's Act\n2013?\"\n5. \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld.CIT(A) has justified in deleting the addition of fair value\nadjustment on asset being redeemable preference shares(RPS) in\nbook profit, without

RAVINDRA K RESHAMWALA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “The Grounds of Appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another:- 1. On the facts

FIXED INCOME MONEY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP.)-(1)(3),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all three all three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

trust is registered as a charitable organization with the Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai. tax (Exemption), Mumbai. During scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceedings, the Assessing Officer found the act found the activities of the assessee related to dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities

FIXED INCOME MONEY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP.)-(1)(3),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all three all three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

trust is registered as a charitable organization with the Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai. tax (Exemption), Mumbai. During scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceedings, the Assessing Officer found the act found the activities of the assessee related to dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities

FIXED INCOME MONEY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP.)-(1)(3),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all three all three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

trust is registered as a charitable organization with the Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Mumbai. tax (Exemption), Mumbai. During scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer proceedings, the Assessing Officer found the act found the activities of the assessee related to dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities and ancillary activities for dealing in securities

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Mumbai Metropolitan Vs. Director Of Income Tax Region Development (Exemptions), Mumbai Authority, Plot No. C-14 & 15, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaatm7106R Appellant) .. Respondent)

Charitable Trust. In view of the nature and activities being carried out by the authority as well as the legal status discussed m the foregoing paragraphs the claim of Exemption u/s. 11 of the IT Act by the MMRDA cannot be entertained. The assessee has claimed itself as a Local authority but it cannot be considered as Local authority within

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