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

13 To 1. Shri Raiv Jain Chairman, Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council Mumbai 2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director Managing Director MMTC Limited, New Delhi 3. Shri Nirmal Sinha Nirmal Sinha Chairman, HHEC of India Limited HHEC of India Limited NOIDA Subject: Calendar of Overseas Exhibitions for the year 2012. Subject: Calendar of Overseas Exhibitions

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

8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(i) On the facts and circumstances

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

8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(i) On the facts and circumstances

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

8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(i) On the facts and circumstances

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

8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(i) On the facts and circumstances

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

8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(i) On the facts and circumstances

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

8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(i) On the facts and circumstances

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

8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(i) On the facts and circumstances

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

8 and 9 in assessee‟s appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. 9. In the result, appeal by the assessee being ITA No. 1301/Mum/2018 is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid findings. ITA no.1316/Mum./2018 Revenue’s Appeal – 2011–12 10. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds:– “(i) On the facts and circumstances

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

8. Aggrieved by the above decision of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee trust had purchased BMW car for Rs. 32,20,000/- in the name of the trustee which is a diversion of fund and violation of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13

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

13. 4 Without Prejudice to the above, On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Ld. CIT-(Appeals) erred in denying benefit of section 11 on the addition made to Building Fund. Such denial of benefit on account of addition made to Building Fund is bad in law and liable to be allowed. 5 Without prejudice to the above, On given

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

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

8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration is whether in case of a Charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act no exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act is admissible. We find identical issue arose

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

8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration is whether in case of a Charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act no exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act is admissible. We find identical issue arose

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

8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The short issue arising for consideration is whether in case of a Charitable Trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act no exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act is admissible. We find identical issue arose