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

d forward or set-off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT off of any loss. Filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Large Tax Payer Unit-Bangalore [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.02.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The issues contended

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM: These cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Large Tax Payer Unit-Bangalore [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 27.02.2015 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The issues contended

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 41D of The MPT Act. However the doctrine of proportionality is a principle in law, which gives direction to a thought of a judge while imposing penalty. It is based on the idea of justice and objectivity. The penalty imposed on a person should be commensurate with the wrong done by him. Therefore, it is always a matter

NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which is being carried out in a manner that provisions of section 11 and 12 of the ITA do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of the Trust, resulting in withdrawal of the registration under section

JAMSETJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which is being carried out in a manner that provisions of section 11 and 12 of the ITA do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of the Trust, resulting in withdrawal of the registration under section

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which is being carried out in a manner that provisions of section 11 and 12 of the ITA do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of the Trust, resulting in withdrawal of the registration under section

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which is being carried out in a manner that provisions of section 11 and 12 of the ITA do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of the Trust, resulting in withdrawal of the registration under section

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which is being carried out in a manner that provisions of section 11 and 12 of the ITA do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of the Trust, resulting in withdrawal of the registration under section

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

1) of the ITA which would be construed as an activity of the Trust which is being carried out in a manner that provisions of section 11 and 12 of the ITA do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of the Trust, resulting in withdrawal of the registration under section

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

Depreciation of investments of Rs.46,19,11,355. (d) Deduction allowed under section 36(1) (viia) of Rs. 159,22,24,604. (e) Excess

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1,31,82,694 under section 234C of the Act. 7.2 During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that assessee trust had filed NIL return of income on 28.09.2011 and therefore no interest is leviable under section 234C of the Act. On the other hand, learned D.R. vehemently opposed such submission. 7.3 We have considered the rival submissions

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-II(NOW ASSESSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1,31,82,694 under section 234C of the Act. 7.2 During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that assessee trust had filed NIL return of income on 28.09.2011 and therefore no interest is leviable under section 234C of the Act. On the other hand, learned D.R. vehemently opposed such submission. 7.3 We have considered the rival submissions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1,31,82,694 under section 234C of the Act. 7.2 During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that assessee trust had filed NIL return of income on 28.09.2011 and therefore no interest is leviable under section 234C of the Act. On the other hand, learned D.R. vehemently opposed such submission. 7.3 We have considered the rival submissions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2)), MUMBAI vs. NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue being ITA No

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

1,31,82,694 under section 234C of the Act. 7.2 During the course of hearing, learned counsel submitted that assessee trust had filed NIL return of income on 28.09.2011 and therefore no interest is leviable under section 234C of the Act. On the other hand, learned D.R. vehemently opposed such submission. 7.3 We have considered the rival submissions