SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

34. Moreover, according to us, the provisions of Section 115BBC(2)(b) are independent of the provisions of Section 80G of the Act. Merely because an assessee is registered u/s 80G of the Act will not automatically mean that such Trust cannot have any religious purpose and therefore cannot avail benefit of Section 115BBC

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

34. Moreover, according to us, the provisions of Section 115BBC(2)(b) are independent of the provisions of Section 80G of the Act. Merely because an assessee is registered u/s 80G of the Act will not automatically mean that such Trust cannot have any religious purpose and therefore cannot avail benefit of Section 115BBC

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

34. Moreover, according to us, the provisions of Section 115BBC(2)(b) are independent of the provisions of Section 80G of the Act. Merely because an assessee is registered u/s 80G of the Act will not automatically mean that such Trust cannot have any religious purpose and therefore cannot avail benefit of Section 115BBC

DATTATRAY N SAWANT HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No 2360/Mum/2013 is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

Charitable Trust. It is submitted that section 2(47) is not applicable as it did not constitute transfer as contemplated u/s 2(47) of the Act is it is family settlement which is a genuine and bonafide settlement entered into to exchange the plots. As per the exchange deed dated 3rd June, 2008 total market value was considered

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Charitable Trust 7.3. With respect to decision of disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(34) of the IT Act, as described earlier, since the appellant is held in the status of the trust and itself had filed its return of income in Form ITR-7, the governing provisions which deal with its income are section

M/S MANTHAN INC,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 19(2) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Manthan Inc, Acit Cir. 19(2), Rani Bldg., V.P. Road, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm 6011 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Dilip Diwan, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

Charitable Trust and M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 hence hence plea plea of of cross-examination cross is not not applicable applicable and accordingly,ratio of ,ratio of the finding of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench in the finding of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench in assessment year 2012 assessment year 2012-13, can’t be applied over facts

M/S MANTHAN INC ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Manthan Inc, Acit Cir. 19(2), Rani Bldg., V.P. Road, Tardeo, Vs. Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai. Pan No. Aakfm 6011 D Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Dilip Diwan, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Dr : Date Of Hearing 12/01/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2023

Charitable Trust and M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 hence hence plea plea of of cross-examination cross is not not applicable applicable and accordingly,ratio of ,ratio of the finding of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench in the finding of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench in assessment year 2012 assessment year 2012-13, can’t be applied over facts

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

JAMSETJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

charitable institution, irrespective of admissibility or even claim for exemption under section 11, the exemption under section 10(34) is inadmissible. That is how admittedly this provision has been construed by the revenue authorities, and that approach, coupled with the facts set out earlier, puts the assessee to a clear tax disadvantage. Effectively thus, as a result of the trust

NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 10(34)- as is available to every other taxpayer, is no longer admissible to charitable trusts registered under section

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

34. Insofar as the first ground was concerned, this Tribunal in that case i.e. Saifee (supra) noted the scheme of section 12A and section 12AB of the Act and concluded that if a Trust was already registered under section 12AA of the Act prior to the promulgation of the Relaxation Act, such a trust would be entitled to a regular

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

34. Insofar as the first ground was concerned, this Tribunal in that case i.e. Saifee (supra) noted the scheme of section 12A and section 12AB of the Act and concluded that if a Trust was already registered under section 12AA of the Act prior to the promulgation of the Relaxation Act, such a trust would be entitled to a regular

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

34. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. Assessee Trust holds 23.56% of the shares of Tata Sons Ltd and the assessee Trust along with Sir Dorabji Tata Trust has the right to appoint / remove 1/3rd of the Board of Directors. The AO held that the assessee Trust has violated the provisions of section

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

34. We heard the parties and perused the material on record. Assessee Trust holds 23.56% of the shares of Tata Sons Ltd and the assessee Trust along with Sir Dorabji Tata Trust has the right to appoint / remove 1/3rd of the Board of Directors. The AO held that the assessee Trust has violated the provisions of section

THE HOLINESS DR. SYEDNA TAHER,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shrisaktijit Dey & Shriramit Kochar

Section 4(b) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The 3/4th of the income of the bequest was primarily earmarked for the benefit of near relations of the testator only, it cannot be considered as a public charitable trust. While the rest one-fourth was concluded to form the valid charitable trust. (Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Trust