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

charitable trust is eligible for registration or not, whereas for the purposes of Section 115BBC(2)(b) what is relevant is the object and nature of the trust / institution. The relevant non-obstante clause of Section 80G(5B) of the Act is extracted below:- “(5B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of sub- section (5) and Explanation 3, an institution

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

charitable trust is eligible for registration or not, whereas for the purposes of Section 115BBC(2)(b) what is relevant is the object and nature of the trust / institution. The relevant non-obstante clause of Section 80G(5B) of the Act is extracted below:- “(5B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (ii) of sub- section (5) and Explanation 3, an institution

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

Charitable Trust In this regard, the relevant para 11 of the decision is reproduced herein-below- “However, in the present case, the assessee trust was already holding certificate dated 30.10.2009 issued under section 12AA of the Act. We noticed that section 12AB(1)(a) of the Act, which deals with grant of Regular Registration for a period of 5 years

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

Charitable Trust In this regard, the relevant para 11 of the decision is reproduced herein-below- “However, in the present case, the assessee trust was already holding certificate dated 30.10.2009 issued under section 12AA of the Act. We noticed that section 12AB(1)(a) of the Act, which deals with grant of Regular Registration for a period of 5 years

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

1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof— (a) **** (b) **** (c) **** (d) in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous

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

1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof— (a) **** (b) **** (c) **** (d) in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous

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

35 effect from 1st April 2016, an additional tax burden is put on the deregistration of a charitable institution in respect of its accreted income. This provision is as follows: Tax on accreted income. 115TD. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where in any previous year, a trust or institution registered under section

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.

charitable institution in respect of its accreted income. This provision is as follows: Tax on accreted income. 115TD. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where in any previous year, a trust or institution registered under section 12AA has— Page 35

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

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

Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal of registration or cancellation that it would not comply. Hence, the own understanding of the Trust was that such effect takes place only "upon" withdrawal and/or cancellation and not by the mere submission

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

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

Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal of registration or cancellation that it would not comply. Hence, the own understanding of the Trust was that such effect takes place only "upon" withdrawal and/or cancellation and not by the mere submission

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

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

Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal of registration or cancellation that it would not comply. Hence, the own understanding of the Trust was that such effect takes place only "upon" withdrawal and/or cancellation and not by the mere submission

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

35,93,380/-. ‘the Act’) was completed and income was assessed at ‘the Act’) was completed and income was assessed at Subsequently, in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed bogus deduction u/s 35AC(1) of the Act, bogus deduction u/s 35AC(1

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

35,93,380/-. ‘the Act’) was completed and income was assessed at ‘the Act’) was completed and income was assessed at Subsequently, in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed bogus deduction u/s 35AC(1) of the Act, bogus deduction u/s 35AC(1

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

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

Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal of registration or cancellation that it would not comply. Hence, the own understanding of the Trust was that such effect takes place only "upon" withdrawal and/or cancellation and not by the mere submission

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

trust for charitable purposes, violation of the provisions of section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act etc. He was of the opinion that the income should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate and that the assessee was not entitled to claim deduction u/s.10(34),10 (35

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 Therefore, section 11 to 13 would not operate as overriding affect to the section 10 of the Act. The language of these provisions does not suggest that either section 10 is subjected to the provisions of section 11 to 13 or section 11 to 13 has any overriding affect over section 10. Therefore, the benefit of section

JEEVANDEEP EDUMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE CIT-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

Charitable AAATL0063C 2,00,000 2,00,000 Trust Total Donation 24,98,000 24,98,000 Qualifying Amount 24,98,000 24,98,000 Deductible amount under section 80 G @ 50% Deductible amount under section 80 G @ 50% 12,49,000 12,49,000 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd. proceedings. Contemporaneously, the above donations of Rs.24

J.R.D. TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) - 2(4) (NOW ASSSESSED BY THE DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 3082/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) J.R.D Tata Trust, The Income Tax Officer, Bombay House, 24, Homi 2(4), Mody Street, Fort, [Now Assessed By The Mumbai-400 001 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions)- 2(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaatt0165F

35) and 10(38) of the Act respectively and also cannot be brought to tax by applying the provisions of section 11 and 13 of the Act. But according to AO, section 13(1)(d) of the Act is an exception, wherein the exemption under section 11 is not applicable to certain cases prescribed in the section. He noted that