SHREE PUSHKAR FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION)-WARD 2(30, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shree Pushkar Foundation, Ito (Exemption) – Ward 2(3), 301/302, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill Tele Exchange Atlanta Centre, Vs. (Mtnl), Peddar Rd, Tardeo, Near Udyog Bhavan, Mumbai-400026. Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. Pan No. Aawts 2303 N Appellant Respondent

12A of the Shree Pushkar Foundation Shree Pu 3 Act and prescribed Form No. 10B on 15.02.2022 (on the due date). Act and prescribed Form No. 10B on 15.02.2022 (on the du Act and prescribed Form No. 10B on 15.02.2022 (on the du Further, the assessee was required to file Form No. 10, which is a Further, the assessee

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

BHAKTI TRUST,MUMBAI-400088 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

condone the delay in both the appeals filed by the assessee. 3. The fact in brief is that the assessee trust was registered u/s 12A of the Act vide registration no. DIT(E)/12A/37348/2002-03, dated 07.04.2003. Thereafter, the assessee submitted application u/s 12A, dated 12.05.2021 for re-registration in form 10AC under sub clause (i) of clause (ac) of subsection

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:-

c) the statement referred to in clause (a) is furnished on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 for furnishing the return of income for the previous year.” The Memorandum explaining the clauses in Finance Act, 2015 stipulates that said Form No. 10 is to be filed before the due date for filing

D K AJMERA FOUNDATION TRUST,MUMBAI-400077 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Us Also Falls Within The Covid Period. Pursuant To The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay In Filing Of The Appeals By The Assessee & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

condone the delay of 326 days. Ground No. 2: a. The Hon. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax / Commissioner erred in passing "order for provisional approval" in Form 10AC under Sub clause (i) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G r/w. rule 17A/11AA/2C, where the appellant had applied for the re-registration of the existing trust under

D K AJMERA FOUNDATION TRUST,MUMBAI-400077 vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Us Also Falls Within The Covid Period. Pursuant To The Relaxation Granted By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court, We Are Inclined To Condone The Delay In Filing Of The Appeals By The Assessee & Admit The Same For Adjudication.

condone the delay of 326 days. Ground No. 2: a. The Hon. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax / Commissioner erred in passing "order for provisional approval" in Form 10AC under Sub clause (i) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G r/w. rule 17A/11AA/2C, where the appellant had applied for the re-registration of the existing trust under

LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) , MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

12A of The Income Tax Act, 1961.\niii.\nFurther, if there is a clause in the trust deed which provides for\nactivities outside India, it would not dis-entitle the\norganization from claiming exemption. The provisions of\nsection 11(1)(c) are attracted only if actual expenditure is\nincurred outside India. Section 11(1)(c) cannot be invoked only

M/S. LIKEMINDED EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals by the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

12A of The Income Tax Act, 1961.\niii.\nFurther, if there is a clause in the trust deed which provides for\nactivities outside India, it would not dis-entitle the\norganization from claiming exemption. The provisions of\nsection 11(1)(c) are attracted only if actual expenditure is\nincurred outside India. Section 11(1)(c) cannot be invoked only

MS. ANAGHA AMAR AINAPURE,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 2664/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 17 months i.e. 500 days were condoned. 4. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is a trust and working in Dharavi, Mumbai in Slum area for education of the children. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted a paper book which is kept in the record. The assessee is already registered

SHALEM ASSEMBLIES OF GOD MISSION,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 2664/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

delay of 17 months i.e. 500 days were condoned. 4. We heard the rival submission, considered the documents available in the record. The assessee is a trust and working in Dharavi, Mumbai in Slum area for education of the children. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted a paper book which is kept in the record. The assessee is already registered

DEDHIA MUSIC FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXMPTION), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

condone the delay in filing these appeals and admitted them for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is a non-profit organization, incorporated u/s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 on 08-12-2023. The main objects of the assessee read as under: “Promote Indian heritage art such as Indian Classical music

DEDHIA MUSIC FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXMPTION), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

condone the delay in filing these appeals and admitted them for hearing. 3. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief. The assessee is a non-profit organization, incorporated u/s. 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 on 08-12-2023. The main objects of the assessee read as under: “Promote Indian heritage art such as Indian Classical music

MOHANJI BHARAT WELFARE FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes in above terms

1)(c) and the assessee must\namend or remove them to be eligible for approval. In the present case as well,\nthe assessee failed to modify the object clauses despite multiple opportunities,\nthereby justifying the cancellation.\niv). Moreover, as per Rule 11AA(2) of the Income Tax Rules, the application\nfor approval under Section 80G must be accompanied by certain

BALMOHAN VIDYAMANDIR TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) I(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust, Ito (Exemption)-1 (1), 42, 59-65, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400028 Pan: Aaatb0099C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Balmohan Vidyamandir Trust, Ito (Exemption)-1 (1), 42, 59-65, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai 400028 Pan: Aaatb0099C (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in filing of appeal is condoned. 2. In the present appeal, one more application for intervener is filed by Shri Girish Rege. In the application the applicant contended that he is not opposing the relief prayed in the appeal, as the Trustees in majority have made certain statement before authorities below to justify the claim of relief by making

JHAVERBHAI PATEL RESERCH CENTRE ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

delay in filing the application was condonable, referring to High Court judgments. Regarding the expenditure outside India, the Tribunal distinguished between financial assistance provided in India for educational purposes abroad and actual expenditure outside India, citing precedents. The Tribunal found no violation of Section 11(1)(c) in this regard.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "12AB", "11(1)(c)", "11", "12A

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