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

2(15) of the Act. The ld AR argued that the rights of the assessee trust by being shareholder bring with it a degree of control, but the same does not mean the Trust ceases to be a charitable institution or loses its charitable objects or the company (Tata Sons) becomes the "property" of the Trust or the business

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

charitable trust, was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1984- 85 on January 7,1987, and allowed exemption under section 11, relying on the notice given by the assessee under section 11(2). Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax, invoking the powers vested in him under section 263

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) -2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

charitable trust, was assessed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1984- 85 on January 7,1987, and allowed exemption under section 11, relying on the notice given by the assessee under section 11(2). Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income-tax, invoking the powers vested in him under section 263

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

2 to section 263 and prayed that the order under 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

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, ()

263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deductions - Donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc. (CSR) - Assessment year 2018-19 - Assessee contributed certain sum as part of CSR towards various charitable trusts and claimed same as deduction under section 80G - Whether Explanation 2

HARMONY FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 1(3), MUMBAI

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

Charitable Trust\n(2018) 409 ITR 591 (Guj.) has also dealt with identical issue and held\nthat even though the details furnished by the Assessee in Form 10\nwere not sufficient, however in the course of assessment, on being\ncalled upon by the AO, the Assessee having explained in detail the\npurpose of accumulation and thus requirement of section

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

263 of the Act by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax - 4, Mumbai is invalid and consequential order dated 20th March 2025 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Ground of Appeal No. 2: Deduction under Section 80G eligible in respect of donation classified as 'Corporate Social Responsibility' expenses "12. With respect to the issue of deduction under section

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

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

charitable trust u/s 80G(2)(iv) read with Section 80G(1)(ii) of the Act. 23. As discussed supra, we concur with the contention of the assessee that since Parliament intended certain restrictions to only CSR expenditure in respect of two donations included by an assessee as CSR expenditure i.e. [Swachh Bharat Kosh and Clean Ganga Fund] has impliedly

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

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 for which\nthe assessee has claimed 50% of the total donation paid as deduction u/s.\n80G of the Act. Prior to the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, the said expenditure\nwas claimed as 'business expenditure' u/s.37(1) of the Act where after the\ninsertion of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Act, the CSR expenses\nreferred

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

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

charitable purpose which includes educational charity. If the income is only accumulated or set apart for such purpose, the exemption is limited to the extent of 25 per cent of the income from the property held under such trust. The exemption under section 10(22), on the other hand, is without any such limitation. The language under section

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