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

2. That conditions are imposed for registration u/s 12 AB are unwarranted, unjustified and without authority of law.” 34. Insofar as the first ground was concerned, this Tribunal in that case i.e. Saifee (supra) noted the scheme of section 12A and section 12AB of the Act and concluded that if a Trust was already registered under section 12AA

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

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

Trust.,AY 2017-18 & 2016-17 "IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2

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

Trust.,AY 2017-18 & 2016-17 "IV. Summation of conclusions 253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under section 2

BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E)- 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of \"charitable purpose” (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act.\nA. General test under Section 2(15)\n\nA. 1. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility

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

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

trust property was given to any interested person as defined in section 13 of the income tax act." 5.3.3 Without prejudice to the above contentions, even if the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 13(2) or 13(3), then the A.O. should have taxed the defaulted amount at the maximum marginal rate without denying the benefit of exemption

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

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

trust property was given to any interested person as defined in section 13 of the income tax act." 5.3.3 Without prejudice to the above contentions, even if the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 13(2) or 13(3), then the A.O. should have taxed the defaulted amount at the maximum marginal rate without denying the benefit of exemption

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

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

trust property was given to any interested person as defined in section 13 of the income tax act." 5.3.3 Without prejudice to the above contentions, even if the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 13(2) or 13(3), then the A.O. should have taxed the defaulted amount at the maximum marginal rate without denying the benefit of exemption

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

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

trust property was given to any interested person as defined in section 13 of the income tax act." 5.3.3 Without prejudice to the above contentions, even if the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 13(2) or 13(3), then the A.O. should have taxed the defaulted amount at the maximum marginal rate without denying the benefit of exemption

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

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;" (Emphasis Supplied) 13.6. Meanwhile, Circular No. 11 of 2008 and Circular No. 1 of 2009 were issued by the CBDT in relation to the applicability of the newly inserted provisions contained in Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso thereto. 13.7. On 19/12/2008, Circular

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

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;" (Emphasis Supplied) 13.6. Meanwhile, Circular No. 11 of 2008 and Circular No. 1 of 2009 were issued by the CBDT in relation to the applicability of the newly inserted provisions contained in Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso thereto. 13.7. On 19/12/2008, Circular

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

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;" (Emphasis Supplied) 13.6. Meanwhile, Circular No. 11 of 2008 and Circular No. 1 of 2009 were issued by the CBDT in relation to the applicability of the newly inserted provisions contained in Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso thereto. 13.7. On 19/12/2008, Circular

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

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;" (Emphasis Supplied) 13.6. Meanwhile, Circular No. 11 of 2008 and Circular No. 1 of 2009 were issued by the CBDT in relation to the applicability of the newly inserted provisions contained in Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso thereto. 13.7. On 19/12/2008, Circular

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

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;" (Emphasis Supplied) 13.6. Meanwhile, Circular No. 11 of 2008 and Circular No. 1 of 2009 were issued by the CBDT in relation to the applicability of the newly inserted provisions contained in Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso thereto. 13.7. On 19/12/2008, Circular

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

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;" (Emphasis Supplied) 13.6. Meanwhile, Circular No. 11 of 2008 and Circular No. 1 of 2009 were issued by the CBDT in relation to the applicability of the newly inserted provisions contained in Section 2(15) of the Act and proviso thereto. 13.7. On 19/12/2008, Circular

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

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

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

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act ………….. A. General test under section 2(15) A.3. Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for such

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

253. In view of the foregoing discussion and analysis, the following conclusions are recorded regarding the interpretation of the changed definition of "charitable purpose" (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act ………….. A. General test under section 2(15) A.3. Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for such