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.

4. The first issue was regarding the interplay of the general provision of exemptions which are contained in section 10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that

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

4. The first issue was regarding the interplay of the general provision of exemptions which are contained in section 10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that

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

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

4. The first issue was regarding the interplay of the general provision of exemptions which are contained in section 10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that

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

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

4. The first issue was regarding the interplay of the general provision of exemptions which are contained in section 10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that

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

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

4. The first issue was regarding the interplay of the general provision of exemptions which are contained in section 10 of the Income-tax Act vis-a-vis the specific and special exemption regime provided in sections 11 to 13 of the said Act. As indicated above, the primary objective of providing exemption in case of charitable institution is that

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

58,350/- and since the assessee has agreed to pay total amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- , the Joint Charity Commissioner sanctioned the Bai Zaverbai Purshottam Nathu Charitable Trust with the permission to alienate the trust property to sell it to Janakalyan Seva Sanstha Charitable Trust. The assessee has sold the plot with school building constructed by it only

PUNJAB KESARI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in above terms

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer (Exemption) – 2(2) Punjab Kesari Charitable Room No. 502, Trust, 5Th Floor, 242, Bhandar Galli, Vs. Piramal Chamber, L.J. Road, Mahim- 400016 Lalbaug- 400012, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp0040R Assessee By : Shri. S. M. Kapoor Revenue By : Ms Madhu Malati Ghosh (Cit-Dr)

4) For the purposes of this section "property held under trust" includes a business undertaking so held, and where a claim is made that the income of any such undertaking shall not be included in the total income of the persons in receipt thereof, the Assessing Officer shall have power to determine the income of such undertaking in accordance with

INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. NILIMA ABHIJIT TANNU, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust (1994) 207 ITR 368 (Bom), CIT V/s. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 215 Taxman 154 and P.R.Kulkarni and Sons (HUF) V/s.Adll.CIT(2011) 135 TTJ (Bang) 630.1n the context of the above cited judgement it is pertinent to note that provisions of section 54 and 54F of the I.T.Act are similar and hence the above judgement

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

58,333 At the most as General Public Not incidental as unit was received for providing utility. It is in the nature of used by outside agencies and dubbing unit throughout business and rendering that too for commercial the year. services to trade, commerce purposes. No separate books of parties. Hit by First proviso of accounts maintained to section

MITHALAL NAD BHARAT EDUCATION AND KALAKAR TRUST ,BHAYENDAR vs. CIT(E), PUNE

In the result, ITA No.1114/Mum/2020 is allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Charitable Trust [2020] 120 taxmann.com 256/274 Taxman 498/423 ITR 69 (Cal) 3 CIT v. Mumbai Where no findings had been recorded by Director Metropolitan Region that activities of assessee trust were not genuine or Development Authority that activities were not being carried out in [2O20] 115 taxmann.com accordance with objects of Trust, Cancellation of registration granted to assessee trust

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

4 10,623 1989-90 Shares Gifted to SarvajikSeva Trust (44) 10,579 1992-93 Bonus Shares received 1:1 10,579 21,158 1994-95 Bonus Shares received 1:1 21,158 42,316 1997-98 Bonus Shares received 1:2 21,158 63,474 1999-2000 Bonus Shares received

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

4 10,623 1989-90 Shares Gifted to SarvajikSeva Trust (44) 10,579 1992-93 Bonus Shares received 1:1 10,579 21,158 1994-95 Bonus Shares received 1:1 21,158 42,316 1997-98 Bonus Shares received 1:2 21,158 63,474 1999-2000 Bonus Shares received

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 wherein it was the premise of M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust wherein it was the premise of M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust wherein it was seen that Shri Vandravan P Shah has given donation u/s 35AC that Shri Vandravan P Shah has given donation u/s 35AC that Shri Vandravan P Shah has given donation u/s 35AC an amounting

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

Charitable Trust. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 23. Coming to Ground Nos. 14 and 15 which are in respect of Ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses amounting to ₹.9,71,368/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed his submissions in respect of this issue as under: - “Ground

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

charitable institution under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee trust had filed its return of income on 30th September 2014, and its assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, was completed on 30th December 2016 determining ‘Nil’ taxable income. Subsequently, however, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’] issued

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

charitable institution under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee trust had filed its return of income on 30th September 2014, and its assessment, under section 143(3) of the Act, was completed on 30th December 2016 determining ‘Nil’ taxable income. Subsequently, however, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’] issued

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