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

6 6th Indo China The Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council The Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council ITA No. 752/M/2017, 989/M/2019 & 2250/M/2019 AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 AYs 2012 Diamond Buyer Seller Diamond Buyer Seller Meet 2012 Meet 2012 Nov/Dec Nov/Dec 2012 2012 (Tentative), (Tentative), Shenzhen/Shanghai Shenzhen/Shanghai China China Indo China Jewellery Indo China Jewellery buyer buyer Seller Seller

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.

6. Tax concerned indicating that the assessee does not “desire to continue to avail the benefits of the registration made by the trustees in 1975”. This communication reads as follows: March 11, 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Dear Sir, Page 7 of 47 Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust is a public charitable trust created

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

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

6 of 36 10A for registering itself as required under section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act. We were informed by the communication dated 15th March 1976 that the said application has been entered at Serial No. TR/10925 in the Register of applications under section 12A(a) of the Act maintained by the Income Tax Department. We now refer

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

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

6 of 36 10A for registering itself as required under section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act. We were informed by the communication dated 15th March 1976 that the said application has been entered at Serial No. TR/10925 in the Register of applications under section 12A(a) of the Act maintained by the Income Tax Department. We now refer

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

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

6. Income Tax concerned indicating that the assessee does not “desire to continue to avail the benefits of the registration made by the trustees in 1975”. This communication reads as follows: March 11, 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 Dear Sir, Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust is a public charitable trust created by the trust

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

6 of 35 has been entered at Serial No. TR/10925 in the Register of applications under section 12A(a) of the Act maintained by the Income Tax Department. We now refer to Section 12AA(4) of the Act, inserted with effect from 1st October 2014, by the Finance Act (No. 2) Act, 2014, and submit that some of the activities

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

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

6 of 36 Dear Sir, Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust is a public charitable trust created by the trust deed dated 23rd December 1974. The trust, on 1st August 1975, had filed the prescribed form no. 10A for registering itself as required under section 12A(a) of the Income Tax Act. We were informed by the communication dated 15th March

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

depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11

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

depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11

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

depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11

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

depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11

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

depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11

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

depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11

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

depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11

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

depreciation would be allowed on assets so purchased. 12.4 It is also pertinent to note that vide Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub- section (6) was inserted in section 11

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

PUNJAB KESARI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in above terms

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer (Exemption) – 2(2) Punjab Kesari Charitable Room No. 502, Trust, 5Th Floor, 242, Bhandar Galli, Vs. Piramal Chamber, L.J. Road, Mahim- 400016 Lalbaug- 400012, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp0040R Assessee By : Shri. S. M. Kapoor Revenue By : Ms Madhu Malati Ghosh (Cit-Dr)

depreciation of Rs.26,21,923/- was disallowed on account of double deduction claimed by the assessee. Further, the assessee has claimed exemption Under Section 11 of the Act, with regard to income from dispensaries and hospital to the tune of Rs. 6