SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, 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

263, has considered the issue of applicability of section 13(1)(d) on merits and held that that the investment of the assessee Trust were held as corpus and the provisions of section 13(1)(d) were not applicable to the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AR summarized that the investments made by the Trust in Tata Sons which is held

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

263, has considered the issue of applicability of section 13(1)(d) on merits and held that that the investment of the assessee Trust were held as corpus and the provisions of section 13(1)(d) were not applicable to the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AR summarized that the investments made by the Trust in Tata Sons which is held

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILK MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

section 263 should be upheld. On merits, the ld. DR submitted that for the purpose of claiming exemption the theory of source and application cannot be used to claim that the income has been used for the objects of the Trust. 13. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee is a Public Charitable

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

charitable trusts which were duly registered under section 80G(5)(vi), assessee was entitled to claim deduction under section 80G in respect of such contribution - Held, yes - Whether since action of Assessing Officer in allowing claim under section 80G was a plausible view, impugned invocation of revision jurisdiction under section 263

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Appeal stands disposed off as partly allowed for statistical purposes

263 of the Act. Pursuant thereto, the CIT(E) passed order, dated 05.08.2022 which has been impugned by way of present appeal on the grounds in paragraph 2 above. 4.1 The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is a charitable trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The Appellant was also granted registration under Section

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

section 263. On a similar set of facts, on an order u/s 263 seeking to revise the assessment order denying exemption u/s 11 which was a subject matter of appeal before CIT(A), the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has affirmed the quashing of an order of revision u/s 263 by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

Charitable AAATL0063C 2,00,000 2,00,000 Trust Total Donation 24,98,000 24,98,000 Qualifying Amount 24,98,000 24,98,000 Deductible amount under section 80 G @ 50% Deductible amount under section 80 G @ 50% 12,49,000 12,49,000 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. proceedings. Contemporaneously, the above donations of Rs.24

AXIS SECURITIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Am) Axis Securities Limited Pcit-4 Unit 002A & 002B, Agastya Room No. 629 Corporate Park, Pirmal Realty Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Kamani Junction, Kurla-W M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aabce6263F Appellant Respondent

charitable trust registered under section 80G.Parliament has expressed its intention clearly by bringing in restriction in respect of expenditure classified by an assessee company while claiming deduction under section 80G i.e. CSR expenditure related to Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund. And if the Parliament desired, it could have been made such kind of restriction or any restriction like

THE SYNTHETIC & ART SILKS MILLS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Synthetic & Art Mills The Cit(E), Research Association, Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Sasmira Marg, Worli Vs. Hill, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Mumbai-400025. Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatt 4271 E Appellant Respondent

263 Of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (In short, "the Act") when the entire tax Act, 1961 (In short, "the Act") when the entire tax Act, 1961 (In short, "the Act") when the entire assessment order passed by learned Assessing Officer (In short, assessment order passed by learned Assessing Officer (In short, assessment order passed by learned Assessing Officer

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

charitable institutions, which meet other statutory requirements, cannot be declined. Once it is found that assessee trusts hold shares in a certain company, all that is required to be seen is whether these shares are held validly under section 11(5), read with Section13(1) (d). There was no legal embargo on the voting rights of the assessee trust

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

charitable institutions, which meet other statutory requirements, cannot be declined. Once it is found that assessee trusts hold shares in a certain company, all that is required to be seen is whether these shares are held validly under section 11(5), read with Section13(1) (d). There was no legal embargo on the voting rights of the assessee trust

VIGHNAHARATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vighnaharata Trust Cit (Exemption) 1605/06 Hurrah, City Of Joy, Room No-617, 6Th Floor, Near Railway Station, Lbs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Marg, Mulund West, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai- 400 012 400 080 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatv8040K Assessee By : Shri. Rajeev Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri. Achal Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.12.2022

Trust; A.Y. 2011-12 conducted? Whether due care has been taken by the AO to examine necessary implication arising out of the return of income? If the answer is negative, then by virtue of the provisions of Explanation to Section 263(1) of the Act, the assessment order may be deemed to be erroneous

DAWAT E ISLAMI HIND,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

section 263 of the Act. 5. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue are: The assessee is a charitable trust

PASHUPATI CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI - 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

charitable trust or institution. We find that recently Co-ordinate\nBench of Mumbai Tribunal in DCIT Vs Gabriel India (2025) 173\ntaxmann.com 219 (Mum) on similar issue where the assessee-\ncompany claimed deduction under section 80G at the rate of 50% of\nCSR expenses and furnished receipts of donees evidencing eligibility of\ndeduction under section 80G allowed claim of such

SHRI JAIN UDYOG GRUHA,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, the appeal filed by the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhrishri Jain Udyog Gruha Vs. Ito(Exemp). Ward 2(3), 109-117, Piramal Chamber, C.P. Tank Road, Lalbaug, Near Madhavabag, Mumbai-400012. C.P Tank, Mumbai-400004. Pan/Gir No. Aabts9375B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Charitable Trust Vs. ADIT (E) [263 Taxman 648] (Madras High Court) “Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable

ADITYA BIRLA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community and therefore, it cannot be held that Section 13(1)(b) of the Act would be attracted to the respondent-trust and thereby, it would be eligible to claim exemption under Section 11 of the Act.” iv. Human Welfare Foundation v. DCIT(E) [2025] 174 taxmann.com 650 (Delhi

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year-\n1.\n(i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section

TOWNSHIP REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankartownship Real Estate V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Developers Private Limited, बनाम Income Tax– 6, Room No. C-62, Vibgyor Tower, Bandra 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Kurla Complex, Bandra - East, Bhawan, Maharishi Karve Mumbai –400 051, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabct7356E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

263. However, on perusal of notices under section 142(1) dated 8.06.2022, we find that assessing officer sought explanation on various issues including on the deduction under section 80G along with supporting documents. The assessee vide its reply dated 09.08.2022 furnished various details including the detail of examination claimed under section 80G. The assessee also The Ruby Mills Limited furnished