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

depreciation as application of income and non-granting of set off- of and carry forward of deficit is concerned, the same are also allowed in principle following our decision in the earlier paras holding the assessee 25 Matunga Gymkhana eligible for exemption under sections 11& 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to rework the aforesaid claims

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

depreciation as application of income and non-granting of set off- of and carry forward of deficit is concerned, the same are also allowed in principle following our decision in the earlier paras holding the assessee 25 Matunga Gymkhana eligible for exemption under sections 11& 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to rework the aforesaid claims

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

depreciation as application of income and non-granting of set off- of and carry forward of deficit is concerned, the same are also allowed in principle following our decision in the earlier paras holding the assessee 25 Matunga Gymkhana eligible for exemption under sections 11& 12 of the Act. The Assessing Officer is directed to rework the aforesaid claims

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

5. As far as first issue is concerned far as first issue is concerned, in nutshell the i the issue is , that the assessee has been denied benefit of section 11 and 12 of the Act the assessee has been denied benefit of section 11 and 12 of the the assessee has been denied benefit of section 11

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.

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further consistently been hit by the Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 4. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why the registration granted under section 12A of the Income Tax Act to you, as mentioned above, should

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

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

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further consistently been hit by the Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 4. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why the registration granted under section 12A of the Income Tax Act to you, as mentioned above, should

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

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further consistently been hit by the Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 4. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why the registration granted under section 12A of the Income Tax Act to you, as mentioned above, should

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

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

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further consistently been hit by the Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 10 of 36 4. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why the registration granted under section 12A of the Income

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

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

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further consistently been hit by the Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 10 of 36 4. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why the registration granted under section 12A of the Income

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

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

5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further consistently been hit by the Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Income Tax Act, 4. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why the registration granted under section 12A of the Income Tax Act to you, as mentioned above, should

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

5) would become falsified and would stand to be nullified. become falsified and would stand to be nullified. 11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision 11. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in of this Court in the case of G.M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. (supra), relied upon

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

5. The first issue to be decided in assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered as a Charitable

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

5. The first issue to be decided in assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered as a Charitable

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

5. The first issue to be decided in assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered as a Charitable

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

5. The first issue to be decided in assessee‟s appeal is with regard to denial of exemption under section 11 to the assessee due to violation of provisions of section 13(2)(h) of the Act. 5.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: The assessee is registered as a Charitable