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

13 and as a result of same exemption under section 11 is denied, assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34) because section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance, the CIT(A) vide order dated 18.12.2017 following the decision

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

13 and as a result of same exemption under section 11 is denied, assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34) because section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance, the CIT(A) vide order dated 18.12.2017 following the decision

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

13 and as a result of same exemption under section 11 is denied, assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34) because section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance, the CIT(A) vide order dated 18.12.2017 following the decision

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

13 and as a result of same exemption under section 11 is denied, assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34) because section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance, the CIT(A) vide order dated 18.12.2017 following the decision

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

13 and as a result of same exemption under section 11 is denied, assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34) because section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance, the CIT(A) vide order dated 18.12.2017 following the decision

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

13 and as a result of same exemption under section 11 is denied, assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34) because section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance, the CIT(A) vide order dated 18.12.2017 following the decision

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

ITO (E) 1(2), MUMBAI vs. CANCER AID & RESEARCH FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Cancer Aid & Research (Exemption)-1(2), Foundation, बनाम/ Room No.501, 5Th Floor, 10Th Floor, Bridge View, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 16 Hansraj Lane, Byculla, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400027 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatc3013B

13. Thus, this objection of the learned DIT(E) cannot be held to be sufficient ground for cancellation of the registration. …… ……. …… 20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that none of the objections and the grounds which have been taken by the learned DIT(E) in the impugned order for cancelling the registration can be held

ANTHAYYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION 1-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

section 13(3) r.w.s. 13(1)(c) of the Act, the addition to the building fund of Rs.1,40,00,000/- is also not allowed. 11. In view of violation u/s.13, no income of the assessee will be eligible for exemption u/s.11. However, expenses exclusively incurred for earning those receipts are allowed. On perusal of the expenses on objects

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)

13 of the Act. The assessee is directed to file the copy of trust-deed along with its Rules and Regulations and to show the original, if required by AO. And after examining the terms and conditions of the trust- deed, the AO may pass appropriate keeping in view, the judgment of Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Ratan

ANTHAYYA EDUCATION FOUNDATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

13.\n4 Without Prejudice to the above, On given facts, circumstances\nand judicial pronouncements Ld. CIT-(Appeals) erred in denying\nbenefit of section 11 on the addition made to Building Fund. Such\ndenial of benefit on account of addition made to Building Fund is\nbad in law and liable to be allowed.\n5 Without prejudice to the above, On given

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

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 u/s. 10(34) which was not allowed by the AO because section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. (iii) On the facts and circumstances

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

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 u/s. 10(34) which was not allowed by the AO because section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. (iii) On the facts and circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BKC, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

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 u/s. 10(34) which was not allowed by the AO because section 10(34) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. (iii) On the facts and circumstances

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

13 of the Act. Further the amendment in section 11(7) was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2014, whereas the AY before us is 2013-14, we agree with the contention of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that a similar amendment, simultaneously introduced through Section 11(6) of the Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, in respect