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

section 12AA(3) on the ground stated by the learned DIT(E) in the impugned order. The grounds thus raised by the assessee are allowed. 21. ऩरयणधभ"ननधधारयती क"अऩीर वीक ◌◌ृत क"जधती है। 20. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed.” The assessee trust reiterated that one of the grounds for cancelling of the assessee’s registration

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

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

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

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

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

depreciation allowance or any\nother allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment\nyear concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections\n148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3)\nof section 143 or this section has been made for the\nrelevant assessment year, no action shall

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

3 Without prejudice to the above, On the given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncement, Ld. CIT-(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO of denying entire exemption under section 11 instead of the Transaction which is alleged to be covered by section 13. Such denial of entire benefit under Section 11 is bad in law and in facts

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.

3. However, it is seen from the records that you have violated statutory obligations as regards the mode of investment of your fund as per section 11(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