LIONS CLUB OF MALAD BORIVALI CHARITY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lions Club Of Malad Borivali Cit Exemptions, Charity Trust, 601,6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills, Pd Lions College, Sv Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026. Sunder Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaatl 1407 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Shankarlal Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

condoned the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal physically. The appeal is accordingly admitted for . The appeal is accordingly admitted for . The appeal is accordingly admitted for adjudication. 4. In the grounds raised, the assessee is mainly aggrieved with In the grounds raised, the assessee is mainly In the grounds raised, the assessee is mainly the finding

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

D S Babrekar Marg known as Avinash Building for a total consideration of Rs. 16.50 crores for which it entered into an agreement for purchase on 13.06.2014 and final deed of conveyance was executed on 30.10.2014. It was submitted that the assessee set aside a sum of Rs. 6.50 crores for said acquisition for which negotiations were earlier going

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

11 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 submitted that second appeal in respect of the 271(1)(c) has not submitted that second appeal in respect of the 271(1)(c) has not submitted that second appeal in respect of the 271(1)(c) has not disposed of by Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that in view

ARTI SHAILEN TOPIWALA,ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 34(1)(1), MUMBAI, BKC, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Om Prakash Kant () Ita No. 4383 & 4384/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Arti Shailen Topiwala Ito, Ward 34(1)(1), Mumbai B-701, Parimal Apartment, C.D. Income Tax Appellate Barfiwala Road, Andheri West, Vs. Tribunal, Mumbai- 400058 Mumbai- 400020 Pan No. Aacpt 3505 D Appellant Respondent

11 ITA No TA No. 4383 and 4384/MUM/2025 submitted that second appeal in respect of the 271(1)(c) has not submitted that second appeal in respect of the 271(1)(c) has not submitted that second appeal in respect of the 271(1)(c) has not disposed of by Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that in view

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

delay in filing of Form 10 has since been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal therefore stands allowed. 41. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as under:- “3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless

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

delay in filing of Form 10 has since been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal therefore stands allowed. 41. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as under:- “3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless

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

delay in filing of Form 10 has since been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal therefore stands allowed. 41. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as under:- “3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless

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

delay in filing of Form 10 has since been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemptions). Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal therefore stands allowed. 41. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is as under:- “3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless

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

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

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

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

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

delay, if any, in making Application u/s 11(1)(c) for the Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2011-2012 may please be condoned. Since, the part of the Income of the Trust is applied outside India, it is necessary to apply for an Order u/s.11(1)(c) and hence this Application. 6. Learned counsel submits that this plea

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

condonation of delay provided in the aforesaid Circular No. 10/2019, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide assessment order dated 30/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 11 of the Act and computed the assessee‟s total income as per normal provisions of the Act under the head „income from business

RAAHAT HUMANITARIAN FOUDATION ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee i

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2024-25 Raahat Humanitarian Foundation, Cit (Exemptions), A 204, Zubaida Park, Behind Simla Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Park, Old Mumbai Pune Road, Mtnl Te Building Pedder Road, Dr Kausa Mumbra, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Thane-400612. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaetr 9830 K Appellant Respondent

D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2024-25 Raahat Humanitarian Foundation, CIT (Exemptions), A 204, Zubaida Park, Behind Simla Room No. 601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill Vs. Park, Old Mumbai Pune Road, MTNL TE Building Pedder Road, Dr Kausa Mumbra, Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Thane-400612. Mumbai

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause

NAUSHAD ALI ABDUL HAQ SHAIK,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(4), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

1. The Commissioner (Appeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the ppeals) may ) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits

CCI CHAMBERS CO-OP HSG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

delay is condoned. The ground No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical No. 1 raised in the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 4. As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits of the As regards Ground No. 2, which concerns the merits

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

Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?” 21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering

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

Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?” 21. There is a delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. After considering