CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

1). It was open to him to "call for such documents or information from the trust or institution or make such inquiries as he thinks necessary in order to satisfy himself about—(A) the genuineness of activities of the trust or institution; and (B) the compliance of such requirements of any other law for the time being in force

DCIT (E)- 2(1), MUMBAI vs. J.R.D TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

253 ITR 593/[2001] 119 Taxman 569. Moreover, on a plain reading of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that the legislature did not contemplate the denial the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the entire income of the Trust. If the interpretation sought to be advanced by the Revenue is accepted, it would

J.R.D. TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (NOW ASSSESSED BY THE DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

253 ITR 593/[2001] 119 Taxman 569. Moreover, on a plain reading of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that the legislature did not contemplate the denial the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the entire income of the Trust. If the interpretation sought to be advanced by the Revenue is accepted, it would

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

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

c) and s. 13(2) were ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 not attracted- property in question was not made available for the use of any person referred to in sub- s (3) of s. 13, within the meaning of s. 13(2) even if no rent or compensation was charged installation

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

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

c) and s. 13(2) were ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 not attracted- property in question was not made available for the use of any person referred to in sub- s (3) of s. 13, within the meaning of s. 13(2) even if no rent or compensation was charged installation

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

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

c) and s. 13(2) were ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 not attracted- property in question was not made available for the use of any person referred to in sub- s (3) of s. 13, within the meaning of s. 13(2) even if no rent or compensation was charged installation

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

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

c) and s. 13(2) were ITA Nos. 1828 to 1831/Mum/2022 Mumbai Education Trust; A.Y. 08-09 to 11-12 not attracted- property in question was not made available for the use of any person referred to in sub- s (3) of s. 13, within the meaning of s. 13(2) even if no rent or compensation was charged installation

SHREE HAZARIMAL SOMANI MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT EXEMPTION CIR 2, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.104, 2297 & 2298/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

253 ITR 593/[2001] 119 Taxman 569. Moreover, on a plain reading of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that the legislature did not contemplate the denial the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the entire income of the Trust. If the interpretation sought to be advanced by the Revenue is accepted, it would

BALMOHAN VIDYAMANDIR TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust, Ito (Exemption)-1 (1), 42, 59-65, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400028 Pan: Aaatb0099C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust, Ito (Exemption)-1 (1), 42, 59-65, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400028 Pan: Aaatb0099C (Appellant) (Respondent)

253 of Income-tax Act provide specific category of person i.e. “Any assessee” aggrieved by the orders provided under Clause (a) to (f) to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, there is no further scope for any other aggrieved person or person(s) interested in the outcome of appeal to approach the Tribunal as intervener. No contrary law is brought

ANTHAYYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION 1-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

253 ITR 3 ITR 593/[2001] 119 Taxman 569. 1119 Taxman 569. Moreover, on a plain reading of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is clear that the legislature did not contemplate the denial the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the entire income of the Trust. If the interpretation sought to be Anthayya Education Foundation

ANTHAYYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

253 ITR 3 ITR 593/[2001] 119 Тахтап 569. 1119 Тахтап\n569. Moreover, on a plain reading of Sections 11 and 13 of\nthe Act, it is clear that the legislature did not contemplate\nthe denial the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the entire\nincome of the Trust. If the interpretation sought to be\nadvanced

ISARC-14/2010-11 TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Isarc 14/2010-11 Vs. Ito 23(1)(2), Trust Room No.108, C-11, G Block, Sme Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Development Centre Grant Road, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8646N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ito 23(1)(2), Vs. M/S. Isarc 14/2010-11 Room No.108, Trust Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road C-11, G Block, Sme Grant Road, Development Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8646N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Isarc-12/2010-11 Vs. Ito 23(1)(2), Trust Room No.108, C-11, G Block, Sme Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Development Centre Grant Road, Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Aaati8644Q Isarc Sidbi 2/2009-10 Trust

charitable trusts where the investors name and beneficial interest are not explicitly known on the date of its creation - such information becoming available only when the funds starts accepting contribution from investors, have to be treated as falling within section 164 (1) of the Act and the fund should be taxed in respect of the income received on behalf

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

Charitable Trust. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 23. Coming to Ground Nos. 14 and 15 which are in respect of Ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses amounting to ₹.9,71,368/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed his submissions in respect of this issue as under: - “Ground

LAXMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

1)(c)(ii) & section 13(2)(a) r.w.s. 13(3)(cc) of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in by deleting the addition of Rs.21,85,00,000/- which has been received by the assessee from M/s. Trinity Infratech Pvt. Ltd against the business

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-1(4), MUMBAI vs. LAXMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

1)(c)(ii) & section 13(2)(a) r.w.s. 13(3)(cc) of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in by deleting the addition of Rs.21,85,00,000/- which has been received by the assessee from M/s. Trinity Infratech Pvt. Ltd against the business

BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Bank Of India Retired Employees Ito(E)-1(1), Mumbai. Medical Assistance Trust, C-5, G बिधम/ Block Star House, Bandra Kurla Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabtb3373J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

C” Bench in the case of Shri Shankar Bhagwan Estate Vs. ITO (1997) 61 ITD 196 (Cal). The Ld. A.R in order to drive home his contention that the contributions received by a charitable or religious trust or institution with a specific direction that the same would form part of the corpus of the trust or institution

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

THE CATHEDRAL VIDYA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhthe Cathedral Vidya Trust Ito (Exemption)-1(1), 6, Purushottamdas Thakurdas Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. Pan: Aabtt5706B (Appellant) (Respondent)

C”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Cathedral Vidya Trust ITO (Exemption)-1(1), 6, Purushottamdas Thakurdas Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai. PAN: AABTT5706B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Madhur Agarwal/Ronak : G. Doshi (AR) Revenue by : Sh. H. N. Singh Sr. DR Date of hearing : 10.08.2017 Date

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

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

c) Both parts of the proviso: (i) and (ii) (to section 2(15)) have to be read conjunctively-given the conscious use of "or" connecting the two of them. This means that if a charitable trust carries on any activity in the nature of business, trade or commerce, in the actual course of fulfilling its objectives, the income from such