DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ALL INDIA GEM AND JEWELLERY DOMESTIC COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

charitable purposes concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

92,75,616/- being 15% of the income derived by the assessee trust under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The AO accordingly framed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. 7 M/s. Credit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro And Small Enterprises 3. The assessee carried the matter before

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)

section 129 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was given to the applicant requesting it to upload its compliance by 25/11/2019. However, the applicant has not responded to the same till date. Therefore, the genuineness of the charitable nature of activities is not established. 4. Considering the above facts, it is seen that the applicant has not furnished the requisite

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

92,09,165 made on account of notional rent on unsold flats held by the assessee as stock in trade. 12 ITA.NO. 943/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Pegasus Properties Pvt. Ltd., “The decision of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai in appellant’s own case for earlier and subsequent years:  ITAT order in own case (ITA No 3081/PUN/2017

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 has been notified u/s 35AC vide een notified u/s 35AC vide notification No. SO notification No. SO 121(E) dated 12.01.2009. - The appellant had duly submitted donation receipt, The appellant had duly submitted donation receipt, The appellant had duly submitted donation receipt, bank statement, Form Form 58 evidencing the trust registration before the evidencing the trust registration before

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

charitable, the relief should be for a section of the community which could be well defined and identified by some common quality of public nature. The Supreme Court in the case of Thiagaralar Charities v. ACIT[ 1997) 92 Taxmann 152, has held that the scope of 'relief for poor" is very wide and it can even include businesses carried

ITO (E) -I(1), MUMBAI vs. DR..D.Y PATIL SPORTS ACADEMY, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

charitable trust, established in December, 2000, with the object of promoting and developing sports, health and fitness awareness and also to impart coaching and training in various sports activities along with conducting sports competition, arranging tournaments, etc. The assessee trust is registered with the charity Commissioner vide order dated 23/02/2001 and also registered with the Department

DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

charitable purposes concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11(5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. It is therefore not only inexplicable, but absurd as to why the Assessing Officer has taken the stand

MATUNGA GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

charitable purposes concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11(5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. It is therefore not only inexplicable, but absurd as to why the Assessing Officer has taken the stand

DDIT (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

charitable purposes concerned and in fact, under Section 13(1)( d)(ii), if the funds of a trust or institutions is invested in assets other than those specified in Section 11(5), the exemption under Sections 11 to 13 would be withdrawn. It is therefore not only inexplicable, but absurd as to why the Assessing Officer has taken the stand

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

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

SHREE JAIN SWETAMBER DEHARSHAR UPSHRAYA TRUST,THANE vs. ASST CIT PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K.Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shree Jain Swetamber Acit, Palghar Circle, Deharshar Upshraya Trust Palghar बनाम/ C/O. Anoopchandji Karnava, T Vs. Main Road, Dahanu Town Dahanu Road, Dist: Thane ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaets4024L

charitable trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 engaged in providing stay facilities to sadhus and sadhvis , and pooja facilities to Swetamber Jains. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, the A.O. observed that the assessee has notsubmitted copy of registration u/s 12AA

CHANDRAPRABHU SWETAMBER JAIN MANDIR UPSHRAYA,DHANU vs. ASST CIT PALGHAR CIRCLE, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

charitable trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 engaged in providing stay facilities to sadhus and sadhvis , and pooja facilities to Swetamber Jains. During the course of assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the Act, the A.O. observed that the assessee has not submitted copy of registration u/s 12AA

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

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

BANK OF INDIA RETIRED EMPLOYESS MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SCHEME,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3249/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Bank Of India Retired Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Employees Medical Tax (Exemptions), V. Assistance Scheme, Piramal Chambers, Star House, C-5, 6 Th Floor, Lalbaug, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai – 400 012. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabtb3373J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 2(24)(iia) and 12A of the Act. There is no estoppel against law and the assessment order of the AO dated 12-12-2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act not bringing to tax as income corpus donation of Rs.1.90 crores u/s 2(24)(iia) of the Act is against the provisions of the law and more

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

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

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

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

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