DCIT (E)- 2(1), MUMBAI vs. J.R.D TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

section 11 of the Act and which was to be applied to charitable objects of the Trust was Rs. 2,56,74,090/-, whereas the actual income which was applied by the assessee towards its charitable objects was Rs. 13,63,56,964/-. Therefore, in this year, the assessee applied all sum of Rs. 11,06,82,874/- towards

J.R.D. TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (NOW ASSSESSED BY THE DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

section 11 of the Act and which was to be applied to charitable objects of the Trust was Rs. 2,56,74,090/-, whereas the actual income which was applied by the assessee towards its charitable objects was Rs. 13,63,56,964/-. Therefore, in this year, the assessee applied all sum of Rs. 11,06,82,874/- towards

ITO (E)-II(1), MUMBAI vs. KALYANI CARTIABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm (Assessment Year :2010-11 Ito (E)-Ii(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Kalyani Charitable Trust, C/O. Ravi Communication, Jj Hospital Campus, Byculla, Mumbai- 400008 Pan/Gir No. Aaatk3179R Appellant) .. Respondent)

section 11, 12 and 13, is also alive in this context. The appellant has relied on the decision in the case of DIT Vs. Keshav Social & Charitable Foundation (2005) 278 ITR (Del) where it was held that - Charitable trust - Exemption u/s 11 - Unverified donations - Assessee, a charitable institution, made disclosure of donations alongwith list of donors - Admittedly, more than

NANDALAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) - II (2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Nandlal Tolani Vs. Asst. Director Of Income Charitable Trust Tax (Exem.)Ii(2), Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar R.P.Goenka Marg Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaatn0043Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

264 ITR 110 (Bom). This is even otherwise patent in as much as a trust could only apply the income as vailable with it, i.e., as arrived at following the accepted principles of commercial accounting. The computation provisions of the Act do not come into play, so that the said computation of the would be de hors the same. This

ITO (E) -I(1), MUMBAI vs. DR..D.Y PATIL SPORTS ACADEMY, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

charitable trust, established in December, 2000, with the object of promoting and developing sports, health and fitness awareness and also to impart coaching and training in various sports activities along with conducting sports competition, arranging tournaments, etc. The assessee trust is registered with the charity Commissioner vide order dated 23/02/2001 and also registered with the Department

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

charitable purposes within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. In assessment year 2004-05, the CIT(A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer on this count and based on his stand for assessment year 2004-05, in the instant year also, the CIT(A) has held the assessee is entitled for exemption under sections

MATUNGA GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

charitable purposes within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. In assessment year 2004-05, the CIT(A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer on this count and based on his stand for assessment year 2004-05, in the instant year also, the CIT(A) has held the assessee is entitled for exemption under sections

DDIT (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

charitable purposes within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act. In assessment year 2004-05, the CIT(A) disagreed with the Assessing Officer on this count and based on his stand for assessment year 2004-05, in the instant year also, the CIT(A) has held the assessee is entitled for exemption under sections

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable purpose under section 11(1)(a), yet depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11 of the Act whereby it has been provided that benefits of depreciation shall not be available to any Trust/Institution registered and claiming