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 and religious purpose, has incurred religious expenditure which is less than 5% of the total expenses of the Trust. In such a case, the trust may be eligible for certificate u/s 80G of the Act and at the same time would not be liable to be taxed for the anonymous donations received by virtue of Section 115BBC

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 and religious purpose, has incurred religious expenditure which is less than 5% of the total expenses of the Trust. In such a case, the trust may be eligible for certificate u/s 80G of the Act and at the same time would not be liable to be taxed for the anonymous donations received by virtue of Section 115BBC

AYYAPPA SEVA SAMGHAM BOMBAY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-53, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalayyappa Seva Samgham Bombay-Trust Plot No.185, Shree Ayyappa Temple Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (E) Mumbai-400 104 Pan: Aaata0312K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (A), 53 634, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and (ii) the amount

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

charitable purposes because such excess investment is not coming out of or derived from property held under the trust which Is a basic condition for giving exemption under section 11(1). In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has not made out any case that excels investment in property to be added under section 69 is not coming

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and for alleged violation in conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and for alleged violation in conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and for alleged violation in conditions of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act have not only denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act but have also rejected assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. We find, while considering identical nature

ADITYA BIRLA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

trust to foreign university for faculty teaching charges falls u/s. 11. Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council v. ITO [1999] 68 ITD 95 (Mumbai - Trib). The headnotes of the above decision reads as under: “The requirement under section 11 is for application of income for charitable

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Charitable Trust 19 ITA.No. 713/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2011-12) ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals Anandilal and Ganesh Podar Society & other group concerns 15:32 To sum up, on the issue of siphoning of funds by the Donee Trusts, there is no adverse observation by the AO in the Remand Report. In the case of DCIT VS Mohan Proteins Ltd, (ITAT

ATLANTIS IT SOLUTION,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,6(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shi Prabhash Shankaratlantis It Solution Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income- 8, Engineer Building, Awabai Tax 6(2), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kasahinath Tardeo, Mumbai- Road, Mumbai-400 020 400 034 Pan : Aalca6845 Appellant Respondent

Charitable Foundation. 27K TER 152 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of S.R.M.M.CTM. Tiruppani Trust vs CIT 230 ITR 636, in which it was held that section 68

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

charitable trust), but is not registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence the persons/individuals for whom the trust is created do not have any \"vested share\" in the income of the trust, therefore, the question of the share being indeterminate or unknown does not arise. The question is a logical one but this becomes a Trust

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST. PAUL,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM.WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Roman Catholic Church Of St. Income Tax Officer (Exem.), Paul Ward 2(2) St Paul Church, Vs. Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar, Mumbai - 400014 (Pan : Aaatr2742L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable trust u/s. 12A of the Act. Assessee filed its return of income on 18.11.2023, reporting total income at Rs.20,49,588/- after claiming exemptions, u/s.11 and 12. For the financial year 2016-17, assessee had accumulated funds of Rs.37,00,000/- u/s.11(2) which were intended to be utilised within the prescribed period. These accumulated funds were subsequently utilised

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

charitable in nature then, is it still to be seen whether the object and activity for which it has been granted registration, has any element of trade, commerce or business. 5.3. Before deciding this issue, it is incumbent to understand whether the activities of the assessee for which it has been granted registration u/s.12A per se falls in the category

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

charitable in nature then, is it still to be seen whether the object and activity for which it has been granted registration, has any element of trade, commerce or business. 5.3. Before deciding this issue, it is incumbent to understand whether the activities of the assessee for which it has been granted registration u/s.12A per se falls in the category

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

charitable work. In any case, the assessee is doing the business and the trading which is a full nature of business activity,and the commercial activity is more than 20% of the total receipt. So, in any case, the assessee has contravened the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act. Ld.AO has correctly withdrawn the exemption

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

68,000/- received on settling of the trust “(ii) Details of investment held as on 31.03.2015 and explain as to whether the investments are as per provisions of section 11(5) of the I.T. Act. The trust is registered with the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under Registration No. TR/5060