SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

254,60,58,091/-. On further appeal the CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. 24. With regard to applicability of section 13(1)(d) and section 13(2)(h), we have while adjudicating the appeal for AY 2014-15 already held that these cannot be denied. The facts for AY 2018-19 are identical and the AO/CIT

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

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

254 अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging the order dated

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

Trust v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)/[1976] 1 SCC 254 in the\nfollowing terms:\n\"5. The sense in which the word \"education\" has been used in section 2(15)\nis the instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for\nthe work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction\nwhich

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

Trust v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)/[1976] 1 SCC 254 in the\nfollowing terms:\n\"5. The sense in which the word \"education\" has been used in section 2(15)\nis the instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for\nthe work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction\nwhich

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

Trust v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)/[1976] 1 SCC 254 in the\nfollowing terms:\n\"5. The sense in which the word \"education\" has been used in section 2(15)\nis the instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for\nthe work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction\nwhich

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

Trust v. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)/[1976] 1 SCC 254 in the\nfollowing terms:\n\"5. The sense in which the word \"education\" has been used in section 2(15)\nis the instruction, schooling or training given to the young in preparation for\nthe work of life. It also connotes the whole course of scholastic instruction\nwhich

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)

Trust, DIT(Exemption), 6th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Port Bhawan, Soorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400012 PAN: AAATM5001D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Hari Raheja with Mani Jain : (AR) Revenue by : Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR) : 01.02.2018 Date of hearing Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH

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

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, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

charitable trusts. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Synthetic Ltd. has not laid down a law that double deduction is not permissible. It only stated that the same should be expressly provided for under the Act. In the present case, admittedly Section 32 of the Act provides for allowance of depreciation

THE MARG FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2(4), MUMBAI

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

section 2. What education connotes in that clause is the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill, mind and character of students by normal schooling as held in the case of Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore (101 ITR 234). iv. Referring to the deed of trust, Assessing Officer noted that the word "education

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

254 was restricted to passing of orders on the subject passing of orders on the subject-matter of the appeal matter of the appeal though within the four corners of the subject-matter though within the four corners of the subject though within the four corners of the subject of appeal. However, within the four of appeal. However, within

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

254 was restricted to passing of orders on the subject passing of orders on the subject-matter of the appeal matter of the appeal though within the four corners of the subject-matter though within the four corners of the subject though within the four corners of the subject of appeal. However, within the four of appeal. However, within

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

254 was restricted to passing of orders on the subject passing of orders on the subject-matter of the appeal matter of the appeal though within the four corners of the subject-matter though within the four corners of the subject though within the four corners of the subject of appeal. However, within the four of appeal. However, within

THE DY CIT 3(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

254 was restricted to passing of orders on the subject passing of orders on the subject-matter of the appeal matter of the appeal though within the four corners of the subject-matter though within the four corners of the subject though within the four corners of the subject of appeal. However, within the four of appeal. However, within

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. C.I.T,RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

254 was restricted to passing of orders on the subject passing of orders on the subject-matter of the appeal matter of the appeal though within the four corners of the subject-matter though within the four corners of the subject though within the four corners of the subject of appeal. However, within the four of appeal. However, within

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

254 was restricted to passing of orders on the subject passing of orders on the subject-matter of the appeal matter of the appeal though within the four corners of the subject-matter though within the four corners of the subject though within the four corners of the subject of appeal. However, within the four of appeal. However, within

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(OSD) RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

254 was restricted to passing of orders on the subject passing of orders on the subject-matter of the appeal matter of the appeal though within the four corners of the subject-matter though within the four corners of the subject though within the four corners of the subject of appeal. However, within the four of appeal. However, within

NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX, SPL. RG.32, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-99 & Assessment Year: 1999-2000 & Assessment Year: 2000-01 & Assessment Year: 2001-02 & Assessment Year: 2002-03 & Assessment Year: 2003-04 & Assessment Year: 2004-05 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Nuclear Power Corporation Of Acit, Range-3(2), India Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400021. Central Avenue, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094. Pan No. Aaacn 3154 F Appellant Respondent

254 was restricted to passing of orders on the subject passing of orders on the subject-matter of the appeal matter of the appeal though within the four corners of the subject-matter though within the four corners of the subject though within the four corners of the subject of appeal. However, within the four of appeal. However, within