DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133A of the Act, recorded on oath, during the survey proceedings, ignoring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 254 CTR 228? 23. This question was answered by the Hon’ble High Court by observing as under:- “4. We shall now consider the questions as proposed

ARCHANA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX , CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

272 (Mumbai - Trib.) Shree Dadar Jain v. Income-tax Officer (E), Mumbai Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Charitable or religious trust - Exemption of income from property held under (Accumulation of income) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee a religious trust claimed deduction under section

ARCHANA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS 1(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalarchana Foundation More House 28, New India Housing Society North South Road No.11, Jvpd, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. Pan: Aabta0873E ...... Appellant Vs. Ito (Exemption)-1(1), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Amit Agrawal Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

272 (Mumbai - Trib.) Shree Dadar Jain v. Income-tax Officer (E), Mumbai Income-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Charitable or religious trust - Exemption of income from property held under (Accumulation of income) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee a religious trust claimed deduction under section

THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. DIR. OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPITION)-RG.-2, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm)

section 10 shall be mandatory required to file their return on income. This amendment shall take effect from 1st April, 2016 and will accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2016-17 and subsequent years. Thus University submits that there was no mandatory requirement to file the return of income for the year under consideration. ii. Shyam Gopal Charitable Trust

ST. GREGORIOS EDUCATION AND MEDICAL TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMTION , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

272 (Mumbai - Trib.) Shree Dadar Jain v. Income-tax Officer (E), Mumbai\nIncome-tax Act, 1961, read with rule 17 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Charitable or religious\ntrust - Exemption of income from property held under (Accumulation of income) - Assessment year\n2014-15 - Assessee a religious trust claimed deduction under section

GAKKO BUNKA EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX (NFAC), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh() & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

trust and balance to be accumulated as prescribed under the Act and in case of failure to so accumulate, the assessee was required to intimate the Assessing Officer in Form No.10 as prescribed under section 11(2) of the Act. For ready reference, relevant part of section11(2) is reproduced as under: "[(2) "Where "eighty-five] per cent

BHARAT SERUMS AND VACCINES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Serums & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

272 (Bombay). 5. The ld.PCIT rejected the contentions of the assessee by stating that CSR related expenses, being statutorily mandated, cannot be considered "voluntary donations" under Section 80G, which was intended to incentivize voluntary, altruistic contributions. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Expenditure Tax vs PVG Raju

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

272/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of\nthe assessee. The ld.CIT(A) however, deleted the disallowance stating\nthat section 80G deduction is not barred under the Act and only CSR\nexpenses claimed as business expense is allowed. He also placed reliance\non various decisions of coordinate benches of ITAT which has\nconsistently allowed such claim

SEVEN ELEVEN EDUCATION SOCIETY,THANE vs. ASST CIT 2, THANE

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negi

charitable trust. ITA/1111/Mum/2016-AY. 2011-12. 2.First ground of appeal is about denying exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act.During the assessment proceedings, the AO called for various details. He found that the trust was not registered under section 12 AA of the Act. He held that claim made by the assessee for exemption under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION -2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MANECKJI COOPER EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

charitable trust running school in Mumbai for more than 60 years. For the Assessment Year 2016-2017, the Assessee filed return of income on 22/09/2016 declaring income of INR 1.68 Crores after claiming exemption of INR 7.34 Crores under Section 11(2) of the Act in respect of funds accumulated for construction of school building, purchase of school furniture, upgrading

HDFC BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 2 (3) (1) , MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

272/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of\nthe assessee. The ld.CIT(A) however, deleted the disallowance stating\nthat section 80G deduction is not barred under the Act and only CSR\nexpenses claimed as business expense is allowed. He also placed reliance\non various decisions of coordinate benches of ITAT which has\nconsistently allowed such claim

JCIT(OSD) CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

272/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of\nthe assessee. The ld.CIT(A) however, deleted the disallowance stating\nthat section 80G deduction is not barred under the Act and only CSR\nexpenses claimed as business expense is allowed. He also placed reliance\non various decisions of coordinate benches of ITAT which has\nconsistently allowed such claim

JCIT OSD CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the above stated appeals of the\nassessee in ITA No

272/- was disallowed and added back to the total income of\nthe assessee. The ld.CIT(A) however, deleted the disallowance stating\nthat section 80G deduction is not barred under the Act and only CSR\nexpenses claimed as business expense is allowed. He also placed reliance\non various decisions of coordinate benches of ITAT which has\nconsistently allowed such claim

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find

DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

272 ITR 54] upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. This decision of the Tribunal dated 31.07.2015 appears to have not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while disposing ITA NOs. 2231, 2232, 2233 & 2234/MUM/2018 M/s. Union Bank of India off the Revenue’s appeal for the A.Y. 2009-10 in ITA.No. 6299/Mum/2013 dated 17.12.2015. 37. We also find