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

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

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

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose and then surrenders

JAMSETJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

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

263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose and then surrenders

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.

263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? Page 27 of 47 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose

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

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

263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose and then surrenders

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

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

263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose and then surrenders

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

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

263) pending against the Trust which are premised on the registration? 35. Learned ASG submits that an enquiry into these issues would be not only relevant but it is respectfully, submitted mandatory to ensure that no Assessee uses the provisions permitting for registration as an unlawful device to make gains in the name of charitable purpose and then surrenders

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

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

CREDIT GURANTEE FUND TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklacredit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro & Small Enterprises, 7Th Floor, Sme Development Centre, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan:Aaatc 2613D ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Pirmal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 .... Respondent

263 of the Act for A.Y.2009-10 directing the learned Assessing officer to frame assessment afresh after considering the amount accumulated and set apart in A.Y. 2007- 08 and 2008-09 as income of the trust for A.Y. 2009-10 which shows that addition of this amount cannot be made or sustained in this year. 2(a) On the facts

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

2). Thus the exemption u/s 11 is available to the assessee only on the income to the extent the same is derived in conformity of section 11 and applied during the year for such purpose of charitable trust. 9. Ground No.2 is regarding denial of exemption u/s 10(34), 10(35) and 10(38). 9.1 The assessee claimed that dividend

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

2). Thus the exemption u/s 11 is available to the assessee only on the income to the extent the same is derived in conformity of section 11 and applied during the year for such purpose of charitable trust. 9. Ground No.2 is regarding denial of exemption u/s 10(34), 10(35) and 10(38). 9.1 The assessee claimed that dividend

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

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

263 held that in view of violation of Section 11(5) entire income of assessee Trust, ought to have been assessed and they are not entitled for any exemption u/s 11 and 12 Tribunal set aside order passed by Commission-Held, Commissioner cannot invoke his revisional power to correct each and every mistakes committed by A.O.- Income, from investment

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

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

263 held that in view of violation of Section 11(5) entire income of assessee Trust, ought to have been assessed and they are not entitled for any exemption u/s 11 and 12 Tribunal set aside order passed by Commission-Held, Commissioner cannot invoke his revisional power to correct each and every mistakes committed by A.O.- Income, from investment

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

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

263 held that in view of violation of Section 11(5) entire income of assessee Trust, ought to have been assessed and they are not entitled for any exemption u/s 11 and 12 Tribunal set aside order passed by Commission-Held, Commissioner cannot invoke his revisional power to correct each and every mistakes committed by A.O.- Income, from investment