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

X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling 'Tata group of Companies', etc. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 4 of 35 5. Without prejudice to the above, a) the PCIT

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

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

X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling 'Tata group of Companies', etc. 5. Without prejudice to the above, a) the PCIT has erred in law and in fact in holding

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.

X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling 'Tata group of Companies', etc. 5. Without prejudice to the above, a) the PCIT has erred in law and in fact in holding

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

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

X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 4 of 36 c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling 'Tata group of Companies', etc. 5. Without prejudice to the above, a) the PCIT

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

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

X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 4 of 36 c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling 'Tata group of Companies', etc. 5. Without prejudice to the above, a) the PCIT

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

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

X of the submissions dated 18.10.2019. b) PCIT erred in drawing conclusions which are factually incorrect on records. Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 4 of 36 c) The learned PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in observing and giving erroneous findings that the 'Tata Trusts' are controlling 'Tata group of Companies', etc. 5. Without prejudice to the above, a) the PCIT

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

x) Tata Motors Ltd. iii) Tata Mills Co. Ltd. xi) Tata Powers Ltd. xii) Tata Chemical Ltd. xiii) Associated Cement Co. Ltd. xiv) State Bank of India (c) In the details so provided, the shares were shown as held on 01 June, 1973 and subsequently, accretion of bonus shares is there. However, nowhere, it is mentioned that the shares were

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

x) Tata Motors Ltd. iii) Tata Mills Co. Ltd. xi) Tata Powers Ltd. xii) Tata Chemical Ltd. xiii) Associated Cement Co. Ltd. xiv) State Bank of India (c) In the details so provided, the shares were shown as held on 01 June, 1973 and subsequently, accretion of bonus shares is there. However, nowhere, it is mentioned that the shares were

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

x Trustee of the Mumbai Educational Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "said trust" for the sake of brevity) who had been ceased to be a trustee on 27.02.2012, had filed a bogus, baseless, vexatious and false case in the year 2012 against the said trust and other trustees of the said trust before the Hon'ble Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

x Trustee of the Mumbai Educational Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "said trust" for the sake of brevity) who had been ceased to be a trustee on 27.02.2012, had filed a bogus, baseless, vexatious and false case in the year 2012 against the said trust and other trustees of the said trust before the Hon'ble Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

x Trustee of the Mumbai Educational Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "said trust" for the sake of brevity) who had been ceased to be a trustee on 27.02.2012, had filed a bogus, baseless, vexatious and false case in the year 2012 against the said trust and other trustees of the said trust before the Hon'ble Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

x Trustee of the Mumbai Educational Trust (hereinafter referred to as the "said trust" for the sake of brevity) who had been ceased to be a trustee on 27.02.2012, had filed a bogus, baseless, vexatious and false case in the year 2012 against the said trust and other trustees of the said trust before the Hon'ble Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OTTERS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

x. For this purpose, the assessee has created international standard infrastructure which has resulted in creating champion swimmers who have participated in State and National level as well as international events and won medals and awards. xi. The fact that the assessee is providing its infrastructure and training facilities to train and groom swimmers for competing at State, national

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OTTERS CLUB, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

x. For this purpose, the assessee has created international standard infrastructure which has resulted in creating champion swimmers who have participated in State and National level as well as international events and won medals and awards. xi. The fact that the assessee is providing its infrastructure and training facilities to train and groom swimmers for competing at State, national

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\ntrust, under section 12A of the act, vide Certificate No. TR/4239\ndated 04/08/1975. The assessee has also been granted certificate\nunder section 80G of the act with effect from 01/04/1992. It is\nsubmitted that as on date, both these certificates are valid and in\nforce.\nIt is submitted that, the assessee is running 12 institutions\nestablished in different parts

GEMMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMP) - 1(3), MUMBAI

56(2)(x) of the Act.\n10. In the rejoinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the\nprovisions of sec.56(2)(x) shall apply to the gifts\nreceived after 1.4.2017 and hence the said\nprovision will not apply to the years under\nconsideration.\nPage | 19\nITA No. 4055/Mum/2023\nGemmological Institute of India; A.Υ. 2014-15\n11. We have heard rival

ITO, LOWER PAREL vs. SOHIT SHRAVANKUMAR SADH, LOWER PAREL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Income Tax Officer Sohit Shravankumar Sadh Room No. 213, 3Rd Floor, A-2, Unit No. 79, Shah & Amp, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Nahar Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 012 S J Road, Mumbai-400 013

Charitable Trust vs. CIT 122 ITR 594 (Bom) CIT vs. Tata Services Ltd. 90 ITD 44 (Mum-Trib) ACIT vs. Smt. Hansaben B. Mehta 287 ITR 142 (Pune-ITAT) Smt. Nargis K. Irani vs. ITO 10. The ld. A.O. invoked section 56(2)(vii)(b) in his first draft assessment order dated 15.02.2021 and, subsequently invoked section 56(2)(x

MS RANA AYYUB SHAIKH ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

trust created or established solely for the benefit of relative of the individual;* 67[(XI) from such class of persons and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed68;]* 69 by an individual, from any person, in respect of any expenditure actually [(XII) incurred by him on his medical treatment or treatment of any member of his family