NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal of registration or cancellation that it would not comply. Hence, the own understanding of the Trust was that such effect takes place only "upon" withdrawal and/or cancellation and not by the mere submission

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal of registration or cancellation that it would not comply. Hence, the own understanding of the Trust was that such effect takes place only "upon" withdrawal and/or cancellation and not by the mere submission

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal of registration or cancellation that it would not comply. Hence, the own understanding of the Trust was that such effect takes place only "upon" withdrawal and/or cancellation and not by the mere submission

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal of registration or cancellation that it would not comply. Hence, the own understanding of the Trust was that such effect takes place only "upon" withdrawal and/or cancellation and not by the mere submission

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

charitable institution under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee trust had filed its return of income on 30th September 2014, and its assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, was completed on 30th December 2016 determining ‘Nil’ taxable income. Subsequently, however, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’] issued

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Trust Bombay finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. (See Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO ). 10. As observed in Sirpur Paper Mills

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

charitable institution under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee trust had filed its return of income on 30th September 2014, and its assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, was completed on 30th December 2016 determining ‘Nil’ taxable income. Subsequently, however, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’] issued

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

charitable trust for which the assessee has claimed 50% of the total\ndonation paid as deduction u/s.800 of the Act. Prior to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014,\nthe said expenditure was claimed as ‘business expenditure' u/s.37(1) of the Act where\nafter the insertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses\nreferred

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

charitable trusts to whom donations were given and therefore the AO om donations were given and therefore the AO om donations were given and therefore the AO was aware of the entire break was aware of the entire break-up of donations on which up of donations on which deduction under section 80G was claimed. Since none of the deduction

TATA SONS PRIVATE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

charitable purpose of the satsang was the aspect which was sought to be confined to the facts of the case. The general principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the applicability of the principle of consistency is not something which was in any manner caveated. The Ld. Counsel argued that this is apparent from the statement

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

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

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

SHREE ANIRUDDHA UPASANA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Aniruddha Upasana Cit (Exemption), Foundation, 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills Flat No. 702, Link Apartment, Vs. Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Tps Iii, Khari Village, Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Khar (West), Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaics 9217 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Snehal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2022

charitable trust trust and for the year under consideration year under consideration filed return of income return of income on 26/10/2017 declaring Nil income 017 declaring Nil income, along with income and along with income and expenditure account, balance sheet expenditure account, balance sheet and audit report in and audit report in Form No. 10 Form

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

charitable purposes/objects of the trust. The assessee duly filed the annual account disclosing the amount under consideration. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 dated 24/03/2011 asking the assessee as the amount should not be treated to be escaped taxation as the receipts were nothing but sale consideration and the capital gains arising on transfer of capital asset

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

charitable purposes. The Commissioner also referred to collections made for performances given as an activity for profit. We find that such performances do not constitute activities for profit as the collections are in the nature of donations received for the purposes of the trust. Hence this objection also cannot be sustained, It follows that the exemption granted by the Income

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

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

charitable Trust running large number of Institutions claimed exemption u/s 11- For A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02, assessee filed ‘Nil’ return of income on 31-10-2001 claiming exemption of income-A.O. held that amount given to M/s ‘A’ Ltd. as advance infringes provision of section 11(5) and hence, said amount was liable to be taxed-During

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

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

charitable Trust running large number of Institutions claimed exemption u/s 11- For A.Y. 2000-01 and 2001-02, assessee filed ‘Nil’ return of income on 31-10-2001 claiming exemption of income-A.O. held that amount given to M/s ‘A’ Ltd. as advance infringes provision of section 11(5) and hence, said amount was liable to be taxed-During