JAN SEVA MANDAL ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTION WARD -1(4), 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: 2023-24 Jan Seva Mandal, Central Processing Centre Income Vinayalaya, Mahakali Caves Tax Deparment, Bengaluru, Vs. Road, Andheri (East), Income Tax Officer Exemption Mumbai-400093. Ward 1(4), Mumbai. 6Th Floor, Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaatj 4868 K Appellant Respondent

12A(b) of of of the Act. 4. It It It is is is submitted submitted submitted that that that the the the denial denial denial of of of exemption exemption exemption under under under Section 11 of the Act, as discussed above, has led to Section 11 of the Act, as discussed above, has led to Section

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

12A, 12AA and 13 of the |. T. Act, 1961. 2) The MMRDA was created as a Local Authority within the meaning of term “person” for the purpose of Income-tax Act, 1961 and with effect from its inception to 2002. The MMRDA continues to be Local Authority in the eyes of law. It cannot be considered as a Public Trust

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

2(15), the nature of activity of the assessee and the receipts of the assessee being more than Rs 25 lakhs, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of section 11. He further noted that in the light of the provisions of Section 13(8), even if the assessee was to be granted registration under section 12AA, he will

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

2(15), the nature of activity of the assessee and the receipts of the assessee being more than Rs 25 lakhs, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of section 11. He further noted that in the light of the provisions of Section 13(8), even if the assessee was to be granted registration under section 12AA, he will

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

2(15), the nature of activity of the assessee and the receipts of the assessee being more than Rs 25 lakhs, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of section 11. He further noted that in the light of the provisions of Section 13(8), even if the assessee was to be granted registration under section 12AA, he will

DCIT (E) 2(1), MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPN LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the Four appeals filed by the revenue and four cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowed in the past and in the present year only on the ground that the articles of association do not expressly prohibit declaration of dividend, etc., to the shareholders and not for any other reason. In our opinion, the flaw in the memorandum and articles of association which, according to the revenue, disentitled the assessee for claim under section

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

12A of the Act would not ipso facto ipso facto entitle the assessee for claim of exemption assessee for claim of exemption The Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council The Gem & Jewellery Exports Promotion Council ITA No. 752/M/2017, 989/M/2019 & 2250/M/2019 AYs 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 AYs 2012 under section 11 of that unless conditions stipulated therein and under section

CREDIT GURANTEE FUND TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amit Shuklacredit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro & Small Enterprises, 7Th Floor, Sme Development Centre, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai 400 051 Pan:Aaatc 2613D ...... Appellant Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Pirmal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 .... Respondent

disallowance of deduction of a sum of Rs.53,69,84,940/-, being 15% of the income derived by the trust, under section 11(1)(a) of the Act, by holding that the activities carried out by appellant are not covered within the definition of "Charitable Purpose" as defined u/s 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is wrong

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:-

12A was inserted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2018, which reads as under: “[(ba) the person in receipt of the income has furnished the return of income for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4A) of section 139, within the time allowed under that section.]” 8.16 We are presently concerned with

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (E) , MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the year under consideration claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act was subjected to scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) by following the earlier year invoked proviso to section 2(15) of the Act and issued the notice under section 142(1) of the Act. Declining the submissions

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

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee was established in 1919. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 with the total income at a deficit of Rs. 55,36,69,321/- During the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income from shares amounting

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

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee was established in 1919. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 with the total income at a deficit of Rs. 55,36,69,321/- During the year under consideration, the assessee earned dividend income from shares amounting

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(E)-2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL, MUMBAI vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since 1976 and is carrying out its activity strictly in conformity with its objects. The assessee filed return of income for both the assessment years declaring total income at Nil by claiming the exemption under section 11 of the Act. The notice under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment was completed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) -2(1), MUMBAI, CUMBALA HILL vs. THE GEM AND JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue in ITA nos

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, since 1976 and is carrying out its activity strictly in conformity with its objects. The assessee filed return of income for both the assessment years declaring total income at Nil by claiming the exemption under section 11 of the Act. The notice under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment was completed