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

5%, sum of Rs.147,71,54,875/- was taxed by the AO under Section 115BBC(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee is that, it exists both for charitable and religious purposes and thus the provisions of Section 115BBC(1) does not apply to it, in light of the specific exclusion set out in Section 115BBC

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

5%, sum of Rs.147,71,54,875/- was taxed by the AO under Section 115BBC(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee is that, it exists both for charitable and religious purposes and thus the provisions of Section 115BBC(1) does not apply to it, in light of the specific exclusion set out in Section 115BBC

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

5%, sum of Rs.147,71,54,875/- was taxed by the AO under Section 115BBC(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee is that, it exists both for charitable and religious purposes and thus the provisions of Section 115BBC(1) does not apply to it, in light of the specific exclusion set out in Section 115BBC

DY. COMMISSIONER OF 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

5%, sum of Rs.147,71,54,875/- was taxed by the AO under Section 115BBC(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee is that, it exists both for charitable and religious purposes and thus the provisions of Section 115BBC(1) does not apply to it, in light of the specific exclusion set out in Section 115BBC

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

section 80G of the Act. -in respect of donation to Keshirimal Himmatlal Charitable Trust, the learned CIT(A) stated that on verification of the details submitted, it is seen that the Commissioner of Income Tax — Pune, Vide order dated 31.08.2019 has granted approval u/s 80G(5)(vi

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

VI, to say, donations made to charitable trusts registered under section 80G-Held, yes Whether, therefore, since said donation on account of CSR was made by assessee to charitable trusts which were duly registered under section 80G(5

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

Charitable Trust 39. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. Sr Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that, clause (vi) of Section 80G of the Act provided that the Trust has to be approved by the PCIT or CIT. He thereafter invited our attention to the provisos the said Section which lays down the form and manner

CHAMBER OF INDIAN CHARITABLE TRUSTS,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT/ COMM OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 2168 & 2169/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2022-23) Chamber Of Indian बिधम/ Pcit Charitable Trusts Mumbai-400020. Vs. Gala No.328-332, Linkway Estates, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaicc9627J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. J. Pardiwala & Mr. Sukhsagar Syal. Revenue By: Shri Nihar Samal (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Trust Against The Imposition Of Certain Impugned Conditions In The Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(E), Mumbai Dated 24.09.2021 & 24.05.2021, Whereby The Ld. Cit(E) Granted Registration U/S 12Ab(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Under Clause (Iii) Of The Second Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Act

Charitable Trust 39. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. Sr Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee that, clause (vi) of Section 80G of the Act provided that the Trust has to be approved by the PCIT or CIT. He thereafter invited our attention to the provisos the said Section which lays down the form and manner

JASHAN JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jashan Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Pcit, Mumbai-5, 301-B Aman Chambers Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Premises Co. Soc. Ltd., Mama Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Paramand Marg, Opera House, Mumbai-400020. Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. Pan No. Aabcj 7040 D Appellant Respondent

VI-A which states that just because CSR donations are A which states that just because CSR donations are A which states that just because CSR donations are mandatory benefit of 80G cannot be claimed. This position is mandatory benefit of 80G cannot be claimed. This position is mandatory benefit of 80G cannot be claimed. This position is also supported

SUBHARMA CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2025-26

vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10 or section 11 or section 12 for any previous year ending on or before the date of such application, at any time after the commencement of such activities:” 7. Therefore, from the perusal of the aforesaid provisions of first proviso to section 80G(5

SAVITA OIL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

charitable trust, it was legally entitled to claim deduction under Section 80G of the Act to arrive at the "Total Income" in terms of Chapter VI of the Act, and AO has allowed it, which action of AO has been found fault by Ld PCIT, which issue need to be examined. For examining the same let us look

JINSEVA FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appe

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

5 3532/MUM/2025 Jinseva Foundation Jinseva Foundation purposes in India. But even the said section does not completely rule out exemption to purposes in India. But even the said section does not completely rule out exemption to purposes in India. But even the said section does not completely rule out exemption to incomes applied outside Indi incomes applied outside India

PAW PETS FOUNDATION,PALGHAR, THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) 1(3), THANE

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Trust.” 2. The assessee filed the application in Form 10AB under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) of the Act before the CIT(E) on 17.11.2022. The CIT(E) rejected the application stating that the assessee has not filed the present application within the time allowed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5

SHETH VIJILAL LAXMIDAS TRIBVONDAS KESARBAI VIJILAL POONA CONVALCENT HOME,PUNE vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalassessment Year : 2025-26

Charitable Trust, which is rendering meritorious services and providing marvelous services for which it is established; 9. The Appellant Trust should get the benefit of 80G since the Trust is fully depending on Donations to meet the benevolent cause;” 3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The brief facts

LIC HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18

charitable contribution. The convergence of both, without clear legislative authorization, would both, without clear legislative authorization, would undermine the undermine the architecture of the tax law and CSR policy. architecture of the tax law and CSR policy. The argument that only certain clauses of section 80G (like The argument that only certain clauses of section 80G (like The argument that

TRIMURTI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,THANE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokartrimurti Educational Ito, Exemption Charitable Trust Ward 202/12 Tulsidham, Vs. Qureshi Mansion, Ghodbundar Road, Thane, Thane Mumbai- 400607 Pan/Gir No. Aaatt9677N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P P Jayaraman Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2026

charitable character of the trust by the Department. 13. We also note additional aspect arising from the record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee was earlier granted approval under section 80G(5)(vi

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

80G by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The appellant trust is earmarking and spending funds for maintenance of college at Andheri, Mumbai as well as facilities at the Maritime Engineering College at Induri, Pune. The Appellant Trust has invested funds in construction of buildings for colleges at Andheri, Mumbai as well as in construction of various facilities at the college

HERE SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23

Trust Akshya patra AAATT6468P 25,50,000 12,75,000 Adventures Beyond AANCA0655P 9,06,624 4,53,312 Barriers Foundation Total 2,00,86,572 1,01,17,974 3.1. Assessee debited Rs. 2,00,86,572 as CSR expenditure in the audited financials which was duly disallowed under section 37 of the Act by way of adding