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. 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

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

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

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

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

Section 11 to intimate to the assessing authority the particulars required, under rule 17A in the form 10 of the Rule. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO does not have the necessary information, therefore, question of excluding such income from assessment does not arise at all. 11. It was therefore held that in the case of the assessee

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

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

disallowed u/s. 13 of the Act, as the assessee 3 Oberoi Foundation is claiming exemption u/s. 10(23C) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) has observed that having allowed the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was duty bound to examine the application of Section 13 of the Act. Moreover, according to the Ld.CIT

TATA CHEMICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT 2 (3)(1), MUMBAI

6,043.27 crore, thereby amply demonstrating the\navailability of internal accruals.\n(vii) The inference drawn by the TPO that the transaction was, in\nsubstance, a loan was assailed as being devoid of factual and legal\nfoundation. It was submitted that the conclusion was contrary to\nthe documentary record as well as settled principles governing\ntransfer pricing.\n4.34 In view

THE BOMBAY SOCIETY OF THE FRANCISCAN CLARIST SISTERS OF THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

11(1)(c) before amendment. Though the accumulated unutilised income of Rs. 24,34,928/- as at the end of fifth financial year was spent in the sixth financial year i.e. in F.Y. 2022-23. Here the dispute is about the demand being raised which is opposed to the doctrine of the fairness. The above amendment was introduced

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)

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

6. With regard to the contention of Ld A.R that the provisions of\nsec.80G permits spending of money for religious purposes upto 5% of its\nrevenue, the Ld D.R submitted that it is leverage given to the Charitable\norganizations and hence, merely, because a charitable organizations\nspends upto 5% of its revenue for religious purposes, the same would not\nmake

ELARA CAPITAL (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- CIRCLE 6(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Elara Capital (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Acit-Circle 6(2)(2), Tower 3, 21St Floor, One Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Vs. International Center, Senapati Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Karve Road, Mumbai- Road (West), Mumbai-400013. 400020. Pan No. Aabce 6487 B Appellant Respondent

6 In that Circular, the CBDT has clarified that Rule 8D In that Circular, the CBDT has clarified that Rule 8D In that Circular, the CBDT has clarified that Rule 8D read with Section 14A of the Act provides for read with Section 14A of the Act provides for read with Section 14A of the Act provides for Era Capital

DCIT 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

6 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

6 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT 2(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

6 ITA 4172/M/13-5749-5750/M/15-110- 111/M/16 Bajaj Electricals Limited (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower