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

ab initio. b) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the power of cancellation of registration vests in the authority who has the jurisdiction to grant registration. Admittedly the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) ['CIT(E)'] is the authority who can grant registration, therefore, he is the only authority who can cancel the registration under section 12AA

KJMC CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(3), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

2)(ab) of the Act is unambiguous and clear. 29. At this stage, it would also be important to refer the cases, which arose in a situation wherein the cost of purchase of fixed assets by the Charitable Trusts was allowed as application of income in the year of purchase and on the same cost of purchase, the Trusts were

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

2. That conditions are imposed for registration u/s 12 AB are unwarranted, unjustified and without authority of law.” 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

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

2. That conditions are imposed for registration u/s 12 AB are unwarranted, unjustified and without authority of law.” 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

SHIVNARAYAN NEMANI SHARES & STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. D.C.I.T. CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2522/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Shivnarayan Nemani बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-4(2) Shares & Stock Brokers P. Mumbai Vs. Ltd. 9/43, Bhupen Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Dalal Street Mumbai- 400023. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs3296C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mayank Chauhan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.01.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-09, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Amount Of Rs.2,98,258/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income Tax Rules

2)(ab) of the Act is unambiguous and clear. ITA. No.2522/Mum/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 29. At this stage, it would also be important to refer the cases, which arose in a situation wherein the cost of purchase of fixed assets by the Charitable Trusts was allowed as application of income in the year of purchase and on the same cost

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.

ab initio. b) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the power of cancellation of registration vests in the authority who has the jurisdiction to grant registration. Admittedly the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) ['CIT(E)'] is the authority who can grant registration, therefore, he is the only authority who can cancel the registration under section 12AA

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

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

ab initio. b) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the power of cancellation of registration vests in the authority who has the jurisdiction to grant registration. Admittedly the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) ['CIT(E)'] is the authority who can grant registration, therefore, he is the only authority who can cancel the registration under section 12AA

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

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

ab initio. b) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the power of cancellation of registration vests in the authority who has the jurisdiction to grant registration. Admittedly the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) ['CIT(E)'] is the authority who can grant registration, therefore, he is the only authority who can cancel the registration under section 12AA

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

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

ab initio. b) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the power of cancellation of registration vests in the authority who has the jurisdiction to grant registration. Admittedly the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) ['CIT(E)'] is the authority who can grant registration, therefore, he is the only authority who can cancel the registration under section 12AA

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

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

ab initio. b) The PCIT failed to appreciate that the power of cancellation of registration vests in the authority who has the jurisdiction to grant registration. Admittedly the Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) ['CIT(E)'] is the authority who can grant registration, therefore, he is the only authority who can cancel the registration under section 12AA

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

ab In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the ove, I am of the considered opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated

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

RAVINDRA K RESHAMWALA,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “The Grounds of Appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another:- 1. On the facts

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate

HEMENDRA RAMJI VIRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

charitable institutions who are assessed u/s 11 to 13. In the said case the Hon’ble Orrisa High Court (2023) 151 taxmann.com 433 (Orissa) dated 06/03/2019 held that since the jurisdiction was with the AO (Exemption) on the basis of an affidavit filed by the revenue only, the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act by the ld.AO Corporate