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 enjoying exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act. As per the requirement of s. 11(1) of the IT Act, as it prevailed at that point of time, the assessee had to apply 75 per cent of its income for the objects and purposes of the trust and the assessee was permitted to accumulate or set apart

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 enjoying exemption under s. 11 of the IT Act. As per the requirement of s. 11(1) of the IT Act, as it prevailed at that point of time, the assessee had to apply 75 per cent of its income for the objects and purposes of the trust and the assessee was permitted to accumulate or set apart

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 services” and that “registration is not a benefit available to all but a benefit which can be claimed by the Trusts which meet the criterions specified by the Act and which are willing to comply with it”. Undoubtedly, that position could be correct for the period after insertion of Section 12AA with effect from 1st April

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

charitable services” and that “registration is not a benefit available to all but a benefit which can be claimed by the Trusts which meet the criterions specified by the Act and which are willing to comply with it”. Undoubtedly, that position could be correct for the period after insertion of Section 12AA with effect from 1st April

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

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

charitable services” and that “registration is not a benefit available to all but a benefit which can be claimed by the Trusts which meet the criterions specified by the Act and which are willing to comply with it”. Undoubtedly, that position could be correct for the period after insertion of Section 12AA with effect from 1st April

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

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

charitable services” and that “registration is not a benefit available to all but a benefit which can be claimed by the Trusts which meet the criterions specified by the Act and which are willing to comply with it”. Undoubtedly, that position could be correct for the period after insertion of Section 12AA with effect from 1st April

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

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

charitable services” and that “registration is not a benefit available to all but a benefit which can be claimed by the Trusts which meet the criterions specified by the Act and which are willing to comply with it”. Undoubtedly, that position could be correct for the period after insertion of Section 12AA with effect from 1st April

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

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

charitable services” and that “registration is not a benefit available to all but a benefit which can be claimed by the Trusts which meet the criterions specified by the Act and which are willing to comply with it”. Undoubtedly, that position could be correct for the period after insertion of Section 12AA with effect from 1st April

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

trust are in the nature of commercial activity as it charges service tax on the compensation and the hiring charges. Charging of service tax is stipulated as per the provisions of Section 64 of the Finance Act, 1994 which are entirely different and not-related to the provisions of the section of Income Tax Act 1961 applicable to the charitable

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

M/S ALIMAAN CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT ( EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1689 /Mum/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Alimaan Charitable Commissioner Of Income Trust, 206, Rewa Chambers, Vs. Tax (Exemptions),R. No. New Marine Lines, 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mumbai – 400 020 Chambers, Lal Baug,Parel,Mumbai – 400 012 Pan No. Aaata2536P (Assessee ) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Firojandhyaruzina, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 28/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2021

section (2) of Sec. 33 & 34 and Rule 19 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Our attention was also drawn by the ld. A.R to the application of its income by the assessee trust during the year under consideration. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that during the year under consideration no corpus donation was received

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

section 11(5) Interest on long term deposits with: Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd 20,33,64,100 11(5)(ixa) Housing & Urban Development Corporation 2,23,51,249 11(5)(ixa) Ltd HDFC Bank Ltd 3,34,48,993 11(5)(iii) ICICI Bank Ltd 71,25,000 11(5)(iii) Barclays Bank

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

section 11(5) Interest on long term deposits with: Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd 20,33,64,100 11(5)(ixa) Housing & Urban Development Corporation 2,23,51,249 11(5)(ixa) Ltd HDFC Bank Ltd 3,34,48,993 11(5)(iii) ICICI Bank Ltd 71,25,000 11(5)(iii) Barclays Bank

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

TATA EDUCATION AND DEVEOPMENT TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT(EXP)-2(1) NOW ASSESSED BY DCIT (EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

section 154 and thus deleting the disallowance of exemption, had any merits, the remedy was not with him. He was not seized of the matter regarding correctness of relief granted by the Assessing Officer under section 154, and, at the same time, legal effect of the order under section 154 was that the issue, which he was called upon

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIES TRUST 2008 SERIES 14, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

charitable nature. The assessee trust is not of that type. (iii) The contribution is related to the business of the company', ITCL; whose object is inter alia to act as a Trustee for Trusts and earn trusteeship fees from such trust. In any case, the total alleged contribution of Rs. 4,34,100/- is less than

ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN CORPORATE LOAN SECURITIZATION TRUST 2008 SERIES 14I, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

charitable nature. The assessee trust is not of that type. (iii) The contribution is related to the business of the company', ITCL; whose object is inter alia to act as a Trustee for Trusts and earn trusteeship fees from such trust. In any case, the total alleged contribution of `4,34,100/- is less than the 5% of the total