MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

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

charitable activities, the amount expended/incurred be allowed as application of income. Under the circumstances, if the ground number one is being allowed, the only prayer of the Appellant is to give a direction to the Assessing Officer to allow all payments made by the Appellant on the ground that it is application of income by a charitable institution

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Deputy Commissioner Of For Micro & Small Enterprises, Income Tax, Exemption-1(1), 1St Floor, Vs. Mtnl Tel. Exch. Building, Sidbi Swavalamban Bhavan, Cumballa Hills, Pedder Road, Avenue 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Mumbai-400026. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaatc2613D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shailesh Shah & Shri Jay Dharod For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-09-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-09-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. Cit(A)], Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Order Of Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- On 2 Disallowances Made In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Hon'Ble Itat, Mumbai Has Fully Deleted The Said Disallowances & Reasons Assigned By Him For Doing So Are Wrong & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Provisions Of The Act & Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("The Rules") Made Thereunder. The Appellant Prays That The Penalty U/S 270A Of The Act Of Rs. 293,63,60,258/- Be Deleted. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter, Modify And/Or Delete All Or Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

charitable activities, hence not entitled for benefit of section 11 & 12 of the Act”, are not sustainable, hence set aside. Ground No. 2 is determined in favour of the assessee. Ground No.3 21. During the year under consideration the assessee trust has claimed provision for guarantee claims to the tune of Rs.13,14,84,00,000/-. During the year under

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E)2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dimissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Nandlal Tolani Charitable Vs Ito (E)-2(1), Mumbai Trust, 10-A, Bhkhtawar, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan : Aaatn0043Q Appellant Respondednt

charitable trust/institution in accordance with the provisions of the Act, even as pointed out by the hon'ble court in Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty 10 ITA 106/Mum/2016 Charities (supra). The Special Bench of the tribunal in Scientific Atlanta India Technology (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2010] 2 ITR 66 (Trib) (Chennai) (SB) held that the profits of a unit eligible

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

DDIT (E) I (2), MUMBAI vs. THE SOCIETY OF FRANCISCAN ( HOSPITALLER) SISTER, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2534/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2535/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5582/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Ddit (E) I (2) Society Of Franciscn R.No. 504, Piramal (Hospitaller) Sisters Chambers, 5Th Floor, Parel, Mount Mary Convent, Vs. Mumbai-12 Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt3991P

Section 11(1)(d) and the AO was not correct in changing the character of corpus donations as capitation fees. 12. The assessee also relied on the case law of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balaji Educational & Charitable Public Trust [2015] 374 ITR 274

DDIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI vs. SOCIETY OF FRANCISCAN (HOSPITALLER ) SISTER, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2534/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2535/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5582/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Ddit (E) I (2) Society Of Franciscn R.No. 504, Piramal (Hospitaller) Sisters Chambers, 5Th Floor, Parel, Mount Mary Convent, Vs. Mumbai-12 Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt3991P

Section 11(1)(d) and the AO was not correct in changing the character of corpus donations as capitation fees. 12. The assessee also relied on the case law of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balaji Educational & Charitable Public Trust [2015] 374 ITR 274

DDIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI vs. SOCIETY OF FRANCISCAN (HOSPITALLER ) SISTER, MUMBAI

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2534/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2008-09) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2535/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5582/Mum/2014 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Ddit (E) I (2) Society Of Franciscn R.No. 504, Piramal (Hospitaller) Sisters Chambers, 5Th Floor, Parel, Mount Mary Convent, Vs. Mumbai-12 Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt3991P

Section 11(1)(d) and the AO was not correct in changing the character of corpus donations as capitation fees. 12. The assessee also relied on the case law of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Balaji Educational & Charitable Public Trust [2015] 374 ITR 274

FAYZ E HUSAYNI TRUST,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NAFC) DELHI , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

274 of\nthe Act. The assessee was asked as to why the order imposing penalty\nunder section 270A should not be imposed. In response assessee\nsubmitted its reply and reproduced the letter submitted on 29.06.2020.\nIn the submission the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to drop\nthe penalty proceedings initiated under section 270A stating the\nnon-disallowance of depreciation

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

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

charitable and religious purposes as per Section 11(1A)(a) of the Act. We find that assessee had indeed submitted the statement of details of change in investments during the year by way of Annexure-3 vide letter dated 21/10/2010 filed before the ld. AO in the original assessment proceedings. The said annexure is reproduced as under:- PARTICULARS AMOUNT

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

In the result appeals filed by the assessee for all the years\nunder consideration stands allowed

charitable purpose within the meaning of proviso\nprovided in Section 2(15) of the act, subsequent to the amendment\nbrought therein. He submitted that the Ld.AO was also of the\nopinion that, since assessee did not maintain separate books of\naccount in respect of such activities, the second condition under\nsection 11(4A) stand violated. The Ld.AO thus treated

ACIT CENT.CIR-2(1) , , MUMBAI vs. M/S. LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

274 of the Act, he made any allegation about the intentions of the assessee that he wants to circulate black money in the guise of cash, which is sine qua non to apply this section. Secondly, in this case assessee has not received cash directly rather patients and their families directly deposited the amount in assessee’s bank account which

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

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