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

trust or institution created or established wholly for religious and charitable purposes other than any anonymous donation made with a specific direction that such donation is for any university or other educational (3) For the purposes of this section, "anonymous donation" means any voluntary contribution referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, where a person

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\"\nenvisaged in Section 2(15) of the Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under Section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under Section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

DCIT (EX) - 1(1), MUMBAI vs. THE LOHAR CHAWL DAWOODI BOHRA MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Dy. Commissioner Of The Lohar Chawl Dawoodi Income Tax (Ex) -1(1) Bohra Merchants’ Association Room No. 506, 5 Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, 56/62, Chandabai Bldg., Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, 2Nd Floor, Mangaldas Road, Lohar Chawl, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 002 Pan No. Aaatl0024D Appellant .. Respondent

charitable in nature and are as per the objects of the trust. With respect to the applicability of Section 13 (1) (b) of the Act that the above trust exists for the purpose of a particular community, he held that the membership of the trust was open to any person who carries on any business or commercial activity in Lohar

DAWAT E ISLAMI HIND,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee e-filed its return of income on 29/03/2018, declaring a total income of Rs.Nil. The assessee also filed an audit report in Dawat E Islami Hind ITA no.1037/Mum./2022 Form No. 10B on 28/03/2018. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\"\nenvisaged in section 2(15) of the Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\"\nenvisaged in section 2(15) of the Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\"\nenvisaged in section 2(15) of the Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under Section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\" as per section 2(15) of the Act due to which the\nassessee cannot claim the benefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly\nassessed the assessee as AOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation\nfees to the tune of Rs.69.61 lakhs under section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of\nthe findings

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\"\nenvisaged in section 2(15) of the Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1, MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\"\nenvisaged in Section 2(15) of the Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under Section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under Section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose" as per section 2(15) of the Act due to which the\nassessee cannot claim the benefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly\nassessed the assessee as AOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation\nfees to the tune of Rs.69.61 lakhs under section 69A of the Act. From the perusal\nof the findings

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\" envisaged in section 2(15) of the Act due to which\nthe assessee cannot claim the benefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly\nassessed the assessee as AOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation\nfees to the tune of Rs.69.61 lakhs under section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the\nfindings

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\" as per section 2(15)\nof the Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

charitable purpose\" as per section 2(15) of\nthe Act due to which the assessee cannot claim the\nbenefit under section 11 of the Act. The AO accordingly assessed the assessee as\nAOP and made addition towards unaccounted capitation fees to the tune of\nRs.69.61 lakhs under section 69A of the Act. From the perusal of the findings

HUBTOWN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

69A of the Act. So the addition made by the Ld.AO of Rs.1.35 crores is duly deleted. 8. Accordingly, revenue’s ground no. 1(ii) is dismissed & assessee’s ground no. 4 is allowed. 9. In revenue’s appeal, the revenue challenged the disallowance u/s 80G amount to Rs.3,85,25,000/-. The assessee had incurred CSR expenses and alternatively

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. HUBTOWN LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

69A of the Act. So the addition made by the Ld.AO of Rs.1.35 crores is duly deleted. 8. Accordingly, revenue’s ground no. 1(ii) is dismissed & assessee’s ground no. 4 is allowed. 9. In revenue’s appeal, the revenue challenged the disallowance u/s 80G amount to Rs.3,85,25,000/-. The assessee had incurred CSR expenses and alternatively

RAJASHTHANI RAWAL BRAHMAN SAMAJ VIKAS MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-INCOME TAX DEPT , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Rajasthani Rawal Brahman Samaj Commissioner Of Income Tax Vikas Mandal (Appeals) Income Tax Dept. Nfac 17, Om Shree Sai Darshan, Kailash Income Tax Officer, Circle 3, Vs. Nagar, Koper Cross Road, Opp. Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421306. Sakharam Complex, Dombivali (W), Thane – 421202. Pan/Gir No. Aacar 9376 B (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri. R. R. Makwana Sr. Dr. Respondent By Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short),National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee, We Hereby Dispose Of This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld.Dr' For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 69A of the Act. 3. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend any ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. JAY KETAN PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) V. Jay Ketan Parikh Room No. 906, 9Th Floor 94-D, Thanee Heights Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe 66, Nepean Sea Road Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaipp6681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Achal Sharma

charitable organizations. Similarly, the instrument of trust dated 26.03.1997 with ABN Amro as trustee with two beneficiaries namely Care Britain and Feed the Children (Europe) and deed of appointment, retirement and indemnity dated 14.09.2006 which is filed at page No.36 of the paper book were perused and we find that that ABN Amro retired as trustee and equity trust

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2) , MUMBAI vs. JAY KETAN PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 1(2) V. Jay Ketan Parikh Room No. 906, 9Th Floor 94-D, Thanee Heights Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe 66, Nepean Sea Road Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaipp6681J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Department By : Shri Vranda U. Matkari

charitable organizations. Similarly, the instrument of trust dated 26.03.1997 with ABN Amro as trustee with two beneficiaries namely Care Britain and Feed the Children (Europe) and deed of appointment, retirement and indemnity dated 14.09.2006 which is filed at page No.36 of the paper book were perused and we find that that ABN Amro retired as trustee and equity trust