SARASWAT HITWARDHAK MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18 (3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman(A.M.) Saraswat Hitwardhak Vs Ito-18(3)(4), Mumbai. Mandal, 1St Floor, Saraswat Bhawan, Chatrapati Shivaji Lane, Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016. Pan : Aagts 2691 M Appellant Respondednt

260A of the Income Tax Act. ARGUMENTS ON QUESTION NO. 1 11. Mr. Desai, learned senior counsel for the department contended that the assessee trust should be assessee as an individual. He relied upon section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act. He contended that section 2(31) defines a person to include an individual, a Hindu undivided family

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 21.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Charitable Trust registered with the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Act. Assessee has filed its return of income

DY D.I.T. (E)-I(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. THE MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MMRDA), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

trust and that because it is no longer a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20) and therefore, by exclusion not entitled to exemption u/s 11. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the findings of AO that the activities of the appellant

M/S. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. THE ADIT(E) RG- 1, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sanjay Garg

trust and that because it is no longer a local authority for the purpose of section 10(20) and therefore, by exclusion not entitled to exemption u/s 11. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in not appreciating the findings of AO that the activities of the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

trust u/s 12AA, this is due to subsequent development, hence the contention of the Ed.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer is not correct. In our considered view, the issue of applicability of section 2(15) of the Act is already considered by the ITAT and issue is well settled in favour of the assessee. The courts have held the activities

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS WARD 1 4, MUMBAI vs. J N TATA ENDOWMENT FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATION OF INDIANS, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Smt. Renu Jauhriito(Exemptions) Ward -14, Jn Tata Endowment Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, For The Higher Mtnl Telephone Exchange Education Of Indians, Buillding, Peddar Road, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mumbai -400026. House, 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan/Gir No. Aaatc0085C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

260A to the Hon'ble High Court vide ITXA 1847/2014, which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court... 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee trust is registered u/sec 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and with the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The main objects are that

SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

Charitable Trust or Trust of any other kind. 3 Slum Rehabilitation Authority On a proper interpretation of the intention behind the enactment of the provision of sections 11, 12,12A, 12AA and 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961, it appears that the tax incentive-proposed in the scheme of exemption from charge of income tax is more applicable

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated 11th December, 2005, passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 240/PN/2004 and 273/PN/2004. The Assessment Year is 1999-2000. 4. The assessee-respondent before this Court is a company engaged in the business of mining and export of processed

ACIT 17(1), MUMBAI vs. ELVE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench, dated 11th December, 2005, passed in Income Tax Appeal Nos. 240/PN/2004 and 273/PN/2004. The Assessment Year is 1999-2000. 4. The assessee-respondent before this Court is a company engaged in the business of mining and export of processed

DCIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

charitable status of the assessee." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted, section 13(8) of the Act automatically 4 I.T.A. No. 9383/Mum/2025 & I.T.A. No. 9384/Mum/2025 comes into operation, mandating denial of exemption

DCIT(E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SRI SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA, MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

charitable status of the assessee." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that once the proviso to section 2(15) is attracted, section 13(8) of the Act automatically 4 I.T.A. No. 9383/Mum/2025 & I.T.A. No. 9384/Mum/2025 comes into operation, mandating denial of exemption

DCIT -(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. DORABJI TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri N.K. Pradhan

Trust registered with the Charitable Commissioner, Mumbai. Further, the assessee was also granted registration under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") by the Director of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2011, declaring nil income after claiming exemption under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEM.)-(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

trust is mainly meant for the sole benefit of the members, who are the retired employees of the bank and their dependent spouse, and not for the benefit of the public at large, therefore these objects are not covered within the ambit of charitable purpose' as defined under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. 2. Whether

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

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

trust is mainly meant for the sole benefit of the members, who are the retired employees of the bank and their dependent spouse, and not for the benefit of the public at large, therefore these objects are not covered within the ambit of charitable purpose' as defined under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. 2. Whether

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

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

trust is mainly meant for the sole benefit of the members, who are the retired employees of the bank and their dependent spouse, and not for the benefit of the public at large, therefore these objects are not covered within the ambit of charitable purpose' as defined under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. 2. Whether

INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEM.)-(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYEES MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

trust is mainly meant for the sole benefit of the members, who are the retired employees of the bank and their dependent spouse, and not for the benefit of the public at large, therefore these objects are not covered within the ambit of charitable purpose' as defined under the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. 2. Whether

ITO(E)-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J N TATA ENDOWMENT FOR THE HIGHER EDUCATION OF INDIANS, FORT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

260A to the Hon'ble High Court vide ITXA 1847/2014, which is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court." 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee trust is registered with the office of Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and also registered u/s 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short