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

3. Separate books of account shall be maintained by such trust or institution in respect of the business which is incidental to the attainment of its objectives. 4. The trust or institution shall not apply any part of its income from the property held under a trust for private religious purposes, which does not enure for the benefit

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

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

ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SRI SRI RADHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito (E)-2(3) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 513, 5Th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. Pan:Aafts2570L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari (Dr) Assessee By : Sh. Nishant Thakkar With Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala- Advocates. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1

3) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 513, 5th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. PAN:AAFTS2570L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari (DR) Assessee by : Sh. Nishant Thakkar with Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala- Advocates. Date of hearing : 20.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN

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

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

ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SRI SRI RADHA DAMODAR CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhito (E)-2(3) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 513, 5Th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. Pan:Aafts2570L (Appellant) (Respondent) Ddit (E) I (1) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 504,5Th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. Pan:Aafts2570L (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 513, 5th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. PAN:AAFTS2570L (Appellant) (Respondent) DDIT (E) I (1) Shri Radha Damodar Charitable 504,5th Floor, Trust, Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-12. PAN:AAFTS2570L (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Suman Kumar

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

MUMBAI PORT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Mumbai Port Trust, Dit(Exemption), 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Port Bhawan, Soorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400012 Pan: Aaatm5001D (Appellant) (Respondent)

253 of income tax act is directed against the order of Director of Income tax (Exemptions) Mumbai, dated 22 November 2011 for assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Director of income tax (Exemption) erred in cancelling the restoration

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)

253 of Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 1, Mumbai [hereinafter referred as ld. CIT(A)] dated 18.08.2015 for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Being aggrieved by the order passed under section 250 of the Income

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

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

253) interpretation of section 2(15) of the Act in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dt. 19.10.2022 in AUDA Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017? 6. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in ignoring the fact that the objects of the trust to carry out religious

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

253) interpretation of section 2(15) of the Act in the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dt. 19.10.2022 in AUDA Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017? 6. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in ignoring the fact that the objects of the trust to carry out religious

IMAAN FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Imaan Foundation Cit(E) 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, S A Kanji (Ca) 206, Rewa Chambers, New Marine Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. Lines, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaati0711L (Appellant) (Respondent)

253 of the Income-tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. CIT(E) dated 24.03.2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: (1) On the facts and circumstances and in law the learned CIT(E) grossly erred in invoking jurisdiction under S 263 of the Income

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