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

d). In Annexure 1 to the letter dated 9th December 2016, the assessee filed complete details of all the scrips, the bifurcation of shares held as on 1 st June 1973 and subsequent bonus shares allotted in connection with the holdings as on 1st June 1973, and it was thus made clear that no investments were made after 1st June

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

d). In Annexure 1 to the letter dated 9th December 2016, the assessee filed complete details of all the scrips, the bifurcation of shares held as on 1 st June 1973 and subsequent bonus shares allotted in connection with the holdings as on 1st June 1973, and it was thus made clear that no investments were made after 1st June

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

13(1)(d) (ii) of the IT. Act, 196l for the reason that as per section 11(5)investment in shares is not a specified mode. Consequently, per section 11(5)investment in shares is not a specified mode. Consequently, per section 11(5)investment in shares is not a specified mode. Consequently, the dividend received there from such shares

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

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

disallowance / addition was made, since the induction of the Mr. A.N. Singh as a managing Trustee from A.Y. 2007 onwards and whenever the Ld. Pr.CIT invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act holding that the provisions of 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d

M/S G.L.CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT/NATIONAL FACE LESS APPEAL CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S G.L. Construction Pvt. Ltd, Acit/National Faceless 304, Gokul Arcade B, Subhash Appeal Centre, Road, Near Garware, Vs. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle East, Churchgate, Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacg 3438 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. N.R. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Dr : Date Of Hearing 16/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 23/02/2023

d Employee's Welfare Funds under clause (b). The due date for payment of employer's contribution was also now linked with payment of employer's contribution was also now linked with payment of employer's contribution was also now linked with due date for filing of return of income us. 139(1) of Income Tax due date for filing

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

d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

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

d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

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

d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13 has not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private person. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the income i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under Trust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

STATE BANK OF MYSORE,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

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

Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) – Ground No.5 in assessee's appeal 26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs. 43,41,10,331/- based on the following computation: Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) Amount for AY 2011-12 Profits and Gains of business before

DY..C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S STATE BANK OF MYSORE, BANGALORE

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

Disallowance of deduction under section 36(1)(viii) – Ground No.5 in assessee's appeal 26. For the year under consideration the assessee has claimed deduction under section 36(1)(viii) to the tune of Rs. 43,41,10,331/- based on the following computation: Deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) Amount for AY 2011-12 Profits and Gains of business before

SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross\nappeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowance / addition was\nmade, since the induction of the Mr. A.N. Singh as a managing Trustee\nfrom A.Y. 2007 onwards and whenever the Ld. Pr.CIT invoked the\nprovisions of section 263 of the Act holding that the provisions of\n13(1)(c), 13(1)(d

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13\nhas not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private\nperson. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the\nincome i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under\nTrust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEPTION) -CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13\nhas not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private\nperson. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the\nincome i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under\nTrust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13\nhas not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private\nperson. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the\nincome i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under\nTrust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13\nhas not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private\nperson. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the\nincome i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under\nTrust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. The violation of section 13\nhas not changed the status of the Trust i.e, from being Trust to private\nperson. The violation of section 13 has changed the nature of the\nincome i.e. from being the income derived from the property held under\nTrust to Private Income. The assessee claimed alternative exemption

THE M K TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

disallowed as per the provisions of section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act. 3. However, the ld. CIT(E) has again passed order u/s 263 of the Act on 12.03.2021 stating that assessee was having investment in shares of M/s. Tata Sons which has been prohibited as per the provisions of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d

THE M K TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

disallowed as per the provisions of section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act. 3. However, the ld. CIT(E) has again passed order u/s 263 of the Act on 12.03.2021 stating that assessee was having investment in shares of M/s. Tata Sons which has been prohibited as per the provisions of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d