THE UNITED WORLD COLLEGE COMMITTEE (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. ACIT EXEM. CIRCLE 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 The United World College Committee Acit Exem., Circle 2, (India), Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, Vs. Ground Floor, Mahindra Towers, Parel, Worli, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400018. Pan No. Aaatt 3774 C Appellant Respondent

depreciation as per section 11(6) of the Act]. Thus, it was found that only a sum of section 11(6) of the Act]. Thus, it was found that only a sum of section 11(6) of the Act]. Thus, it was found that only a sum of Rs.15,99,351/- - was was applied applied for for education education activities

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT LTU (2), MUMBAI

11\nreferred to above, for the purpose of the Income-tax Act cannot\nbe extended to section 129 of the Companies Act. Non-\napplication of the proviso below section 129 of the Companies\nAct would necessarily mean that though the Appellant may be\nregarded as a company for the purposes of the Act, the essential\ncondition in section 115JB(2

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

11\nreferred to above, for the purpose of the Income-tax Act cannot\nbe extended to section 129 of the Companies Act. Non-\napplication of the proviso below section 129 of the Companies\nAct would necessarily mean that though the Appellant may be\nregarded as a company for the purposes of the Act, the essential\ncondition in section 115JB(2

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

depreciation under section 32(1) (ii reciation under section 32(1) (ii-a) of the Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption Act. As per the settled position of law, an assessee claiming exemption has to strictly and literally comply with the exemption

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

2(15) could not have been invoked to decline benefit of sections 11. The A.O. is therefore, directed to allow the assessee exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer is not satisfied and is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

2(15) could not have been invoked to decline benefit of sections 11. The A.O. is therefore, directed to allow the assessee exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer is not satisfied and is in appeal before us. CO No 42/Mum/20 ITA No. 2880/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 28 of 37 5. We have heard

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

2(15) could not have been invoked to decline benefit of sections 11. The A.O. is therefore, directed to allow the assessee exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 4. The Assessing Officer is not satisfied and is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

11 of the Act. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in holding so. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. f. CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg 191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

11 of the Act. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in holding so. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. f. CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg 191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

11 of the Act. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in holding so. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. f. CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg 191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

11 of the Act. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in holding so. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. f. CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg 191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

11 of the Act. No error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in holding so. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. f. CIT(E) v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (395 ITR 18) (All HC) (Pg 191 of LPB, Para 51-71) Para 51. We would now examine in the light

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

2(15) could not have been invoked to decline benefit of sections 11. The A.O. is therefore, directed to allow the assessee exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the revenue has filed an appeal with the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.DR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in granting

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

2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. 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

2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

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

2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

NAVJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. 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

2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

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

2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

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

2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption