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

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

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

section 271(1)(c) is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. submitted that in respect of disallowance of foreign travel expenditure of Rs.7,29,580/-, it was explained during the assessment proceeding that Mrs. Jayshree Patel I wife of Mr. Amrish Patel, brother of Mr. Mukesh Patel. Mrs. Ketki Patel was wife of Mr. Mukesh Patel who expired suddenly

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

trusts and conveniences calculated to benefit employees or ex-employees of the company or the dependents or connections of such persons; granting pensions and allowances and making payments towards insurance; subscribing to or guaranteeing moneys for charitable or benevolent objects or for any exhibition or for any public, general or useful object; (k) the acquisition, construction, maintenance and alteration

ASST CIT CIR 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

trusts and conveniences calculated to benefit employees or ex-employees of the company or the dependents or connections of such persons; granting pensions and allowances and making payments towards insurance; subscribing to or guaranteeing moneys for charitable or benevolent objects or for any exhibition or for any public, general or useful object; (k) the acquisition, construction, maintenance and alteration

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

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

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

271(1)(c).” 5. The assessee has raised several issues in the above grounds of appeal and we shall deal the above issues raised by the assessee ground wise. 6. Ground No.1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, ground No.1 is dismissed. 7. Coming to Ground Nos. 2 to 12 which are in respect of addition

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the trust was denied exemption

PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the trust was denied exemption

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

1), (2) and (3) or under the provisions of section 111A or section 112 or section 112A or the provision of section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act, shall be increased by a surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the case of particular class of assessees in the manner provided therein. As could be seen from items

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

1), (2) and (3) or under the provisions of section 111A or section 112 or section 112A or the provision of section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act, shall be increased by a surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the case of particular class of assessees in the manner provided therein. As could be seen from items

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

1), (2) and (3) or under the provisions of section 111A or section 112 or section 112A or the provision of section 115BAC of the Income Tax Act, shall be increased by a surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the case of particular class of assessees in the manner provided therein. As could be seen from items

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

271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee has made detailed submission

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

271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee has made detailed submission

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

1% of commission on accommodation entries provided to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. No further appeal against the said addition was filed by assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PRABHODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the ITA No. 3831 & 3833/MUM/2015

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PABODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the ITA No. 3831 & 3833/MUM/2015

DDIT (IT) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CREDIT LYONNAIS (THROUGH THERI SUCCESSOR CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK ( FORMERLY CALYON BANK), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed

1. Missionaries of Charity(Brothers), Calcutta - Rs. 75,000/- 2. MA-Niketan Society, Thane - Rs.75,000/- 3. S. Vabodhini Charitable E Trust, Chennai - Rs.6,000/- By referring to the acknowledgement receipts placed in the Paper Book at pages 51 to 52, it was sought to be pointed out that all the three recipients are recognized under section

LIC GOLDEN JUBILEE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION) 1 (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

charitable trust registered under the Mumbai Public Trust Act, 1950, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 09.09.2010 declaring „Nil‟ income. In the assessment proceedings, under Section 143(3) of the Act total income of the Appellant was determined that INR 2,11,47,230/-, and penalty proceeding was initiated under Section 271(1