ITO(E)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BHAVITHA FOUNDATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2021-22

disallowed the benefit of dividend income for exemption u/s 11 of the Act and made addition of Rs.48,70,00 the Act and made addition of Rs.48,70,00,000/- to the returned to the returned income of the assessee. income of the assessee. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition. On further appeal

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. ADDITIONAL /JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in both AY 2014-15 and AY

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

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

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

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

disallowing the exemption claimed u/s 10(34) of the IT Act, as described earlier, since the appellant is held in the status of the trust and itself had filed its return of income in Form ITR-7, the governing provisions which deal with its income are section 11,12 and 13 and not the section 10. Section

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

disallowance of dividend income of Rs.2,76,459/- from investment in UTI units as exempt u/s.10(33) of the Act. The 7 A.Y.2010-11 Assessing Officer deleted the said income from the property and applied the provision of section 11 of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that the dividend income was already exempted u/s.10

LIONS CLUB OF MALAD BORIVALI CHARITY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lions Club Of Malad Borivali Cit Exemptions, Charity Trust, 601,6Th Floor, Cumballa Hills, Pd Lions College, Sv Road, Vs. Mumbai-400026. Sunder Nagar, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaatl 1407 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Shankarlal Jain, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. According to him, the Assessing Officer has not verified this issue According to him, the Assessing Officer has not verified this issue According to him, the Assessing Officer has not verified this issue during the course of asses during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(E sment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(E) after

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The income of the charitable/religious trust or institution is exempt u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act subject to the fulfillment of conditions stipulated u/s 11 and 13 of the Act. There are two testes to be qualified by the trust or institution to avail

SHREE DADAR JAIN PAUSHADHSHALA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E_ - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2061/Mum/2019 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Shree Dadar Jain Ito(E)-1(2) Paushadhshala Trust, Room No. 501, 5 Th Floor, Aaradhana Bhavan, Piramal Chambers, V. 289, S K Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Dadar West, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaats7848E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. Bhadresh Doshi Revenue By: Shri. Abhi Rama Karthikeyn S. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2061/Mum/2019, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 08/02/2019, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Cit(A)‖) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-3/It-10394/2017-18, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2006 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called ―The Ao‖) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ―The Act‖) For Ay:2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called ―The Tribunal‖) Read As Under:-

Section 143(3) of the 1961 Act from the perusal of the statement of total income computed by assessee 2 | P a g e Page 3 of 33 that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 11(2) of the 1961 Act, amounting to Rs. 6,50,00,000/- but the assessee has not filed Form no. 10 electronically alongwith Resolution

RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

J.R.D TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

disallowed exemption of dividend under section 10(34). Learned Commissioner does not dispute these facts but adds that the Assessing Officer did not examine the fundamental question as to whether these shareholdings, as on 1st June 1973, were part of the corpus or not. Unless, according to the learned Commissioner, these shareholdings were held to be part of the corpus

M/S. THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKER IN INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

6 The Board of Control for Cricket in India concerned officials. Having disallowed a part of the expenditure claimed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer also proceeded to deny assessee’s claim of exemption under section 11

SHREE DADAR DIGAMER JAIN MUMUKSHO MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) WARD 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Dadar Digamber Jain The Cit (Exemption), Mumukshu Mandal, Ward-2(3), 271/293, 271/293, Vs. Mumbai. N.C. Kelkar Road, Opp: Shivaji Park, P.O. Dadar (West) Mumbai-400028. Pan : Aacts8044A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.N. Shah For Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 05-03-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24, Wherein The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowance made on the basis of the amended Section 11(3)(c) of the Act is legally untenable and is liable to be quashed by deleting the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). 11. Per contra, the Ld. DR is heard, who has relied on the order passed

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 1004/M/2021 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2016 – 17 is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Strides Pharma Science Ltd. Dcit 15(1)(2) 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai, 400703 Mumbai 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcs8104P

6 is with respect to the disallowance under section 14 A of the act whether it needs to be imputed on increased to the book profit computed under section 115JB of the act has already been decided by the honourable Bombay High Court in CIT versus JSW energy Limited {2015 SCC ONLINE BOM 52432015 ITR 379 362015 TAXMANNCOM BOMBAY

ACIL NAVASAR JAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16

disallowed the deduction for the amount accumulated provisions of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In order to claim provisions of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In order to claim provisions of section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In order to claim exemptions u/s 11 and 12 of the Act, the conditions mentioned

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

6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since all the cross appeals pertain to the same assessee and issues involved are, inter-alia, common, therefore, these appeals were heard together as a matter

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

6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since all the cross appeals pertain to the same assessee and issues involved are, inter-alia, common, therefore, these appeals were heard together as a matter

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

6, Mumbai, (hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for the assessment years 2011- 12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 2. Since all the cross appeals pertain to the same assessee and issues involved are, inter-alia, common, therefore, these appeals were heard together as a matter