AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

charitable trust under Bombay Public Trust Act and is assessed to tax and letter of confirmation was submitted. The accounts of the said society are audited and amount appeared as a loan to the assessee. In respect of interest on advance to Autoriders Finance it was explained that the transaction with the Autoriders Finance which was a group company

AUTORIDERS INDIA P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 9(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed, as above

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 1997-98 Assessment Year: 1999-2000 Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S. Autoriders India Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Comm. Of Income 4-A, Vikas Centre, Tax-9(1), 104 S.V. Road, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Santacruz, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaaca8939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R.P. Meena, D.R. & Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

charitable trust under Bombay Public Trust Act and is assessed to tax and letter of confirmation was submitted. The accounts of the said society are audited and amount appeared as a loan to the assessee. In respect of interest on advance to Autoriders Finance it was explained that the transaction with the Autoriders Finance which was a group company

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 23. Coming to Ground Nos. 14 and 15 which are in respect of Ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses amounting to ₹.9,71,368/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed his submissions in respect of this issue as under: - “Ground

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Charitable Trust for commission. The assessment of entry providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the providers were completed u/s 153C and commission income on the accommodation transaction was taxed. Few do accommodation transaction was taxed. Few donors covered u/s nors covered u/s Estate of Vandravan P Shah

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

charitable object qualifying for exemption under section 11 of the Act. This decision is squarely covers the present case. In the instant case too, the assessee trust has been providing guarantees as per the Trust Deed settled by Government of India and SIDBI. It is also not a case where the assessee has been charging exorbitant processing and service charges

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Charitable Trust the incometax is applicable only when the income of the assessee is above Rs.50 lacs, but less than Rs.1 crore. Thus, as per Paragraph A, Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act- 2023, the threshold limit for applicability of surcharge is when total income is Rs.50 lacs and above. In other words, if the total income

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Charitable Trust the incometax is applicable only when the income of the assessee is above Rs.50 lacs, but less than Rs.1 crore. Thus, as per Paragraph A, Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act- 2023, the threshold limit for applicability of surcharge is when total income is Rs.50 lacs and above. In other words, if the total income

RAHULKUMAR BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Charitable Trust the incometax is applicable only when the income of the assessee is above Rs.50 lacs, but less than Rs.1 crore. Thus, as per Paragraph A, Part (I) of First Schedule to the Finance Act- 2023, the threshold limit for applicability of surcharge is when total income is Rs.50 lacs and above. In other words, if the total income

KALLIANJI CHATURBHUJ AND VIJAY CANTOL CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)-1(4), MUMBAI

271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act on your appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars be deleted” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee being a charitable trust having PAN - AAATB0539K, whose accounts are being audited under section

MINIM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,BANDRA WEST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1840/Mum/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17

section 11 has to be a conscious accumulation and not just a mass of unspent or unapplied profits. The citations relied upon by the appellant also do not help him because the case of the AO is not merely that the appellant has not fully elaborated upon the ITA 1840/MUM/2021 Minim Charitable Foundation, Mumbai . purpose of application of accumulated funds

ACIT CENT CIR 2(1) , MUMBAI vs. SHRI AMISH A MODI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Charitable Trust of Rs.30.743/- should not be taxed as your income. The assessee vide his letter dated 23/11/2016 confirmed to consider commission income in his computation of income. The commission income offered was not disclosed in the return of income therefore the same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Charitable Trust of Rs.30.743/- should not be taxed as your income. The assessee vide his letter dated 23/11/2016 confirmed to consider commission income in his computation of income. The commission income offered was not disclosed in the return of income therefore the same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

ASSTT. CIT, CENTRAL CIR-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI AMISH A MODI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Charitable Trust of Rs.30.743/- should not be taxed as your income. The assessee vide his letter dated 23/11/2016 confirmed to consider commission income in his computation of income. The commission income offered was not disclosed in the return of income therefore the same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. DY CTI-CC-2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Charitable Trust of Rs.30.743/- should not be taxed as your income. The assessee vide his letter dated 23/11/2016 confirmed to consider commission income in his computation of income. The commission income offered was not disclosed in the return of income therefore the same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

AMISH ANANTRAI MODI,MUMBAI vs. DY CTI-CC-2(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Charitable Trust of Rs.30.743/- should not be taxed as your income. The assessee vide his letter dated 23/11/2016 confirmed to consider commission income in his computation of income. The commission income offered was not disclosed in the return of income therefore the same is taxed as undisclosed income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

section 147\non 20.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee through legal\nrepresentative, retaining the PAN of the deceased. The Assessing\nOfficer declined the deduction u/s 35AC of the Act observing as\nunder:\n“5. The case of M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was centralized with\nthe DCIT- Central Circle -2(1), Mumbai. The trusts recognition granted\nby the National

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

section 147\non 20.12.2018 in the name of the deceased assessee through legal\nrepresentative, retaining the PAN of the deceased. The Assessing\nOfficer declined the deduction u/s 35AC of the Act observing as\nunder:\n“5. The case of M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was centralized with\nthe DCIT- Central Circle -2(1), Mumbai. The trusts recognition granted\nby the National

SHRI AMIT CHANDRAKANT SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

Charitable Trust. No further appeal against the said addition was filed by assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 21.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Charitable Trust registered with the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Act. Assessee has filed its return of income