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) of the Act and rejected the plea of the assessee of of the assessee of application of rule of consistency. rule of consistency. The Ld. CIT(A) finally upheld the The Ld. CIT(A) finally upheld the action of the Assessing Officer for: action of the Assessing Officer for: (i) disallowance

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

section 2(15) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the AO be directed to allow exemption u/s. 11 of the Act as claimed by the Appellant. GROUND II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent

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

section 2(15) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the AO be directed to allow exemption u/s. 11 of the Act as claimed by the Appellant. GROUND II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent

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

section 2(15) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the AO be directed to allow exemption u/s. 11 of the Act as claimed by the Appellant. GROUND II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent

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

section 2(15) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the AO be directed to allow exemption u/s. 11 of the Act as claimed by the Appellant. GROUND II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent

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

section 2(15) is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the AO be directed to allow exemption u/s. 11 of the Act as claimed by the Appellant. GROUND II: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in holding that the Appellant is not an agent

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

2(15) of the Act and the assessee’s receipts are more than Rs 25 lakhs, Hence, the assessee is not entitled for the benefit u/s 11 of the Act. The A.O has dealt elaborately in his order and denied the benefit u/s 11 of the Act and assessed the excess of income over expenditure as total income

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

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

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

disallowance for all the years under\nconsideration. The Ld. Sr. Counsel thus submitted that A.Y.2009-\n10 may be considered as it covers all the issues alleged by the\nassessee in present appeals even on merits. The submissions of the\nLd. Sr. Counsel was acceptable to the Ld. DR.\nAccordingly, grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 raised by the\nassessee

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

disallowance for all the years under\nconsideration. The Ld. Sr. Counsel thus submitted that A.Y.2009-\n10 may be considered as it covers all the issues alleged by the\nassessee in present appeals even on merits. The submissions of the\nLd. Sr. Counsel was acceptable to the Ld. DR.\nAccordingly, grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 raised by the\nassessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 2(15) as the income of the assessee consists of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 2(15) as the income of the assessee consists of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI RAILWAY VIKAS CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 2(15) as the income of the assessee consists of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

disallowance for all the years under\nconsideration. The Ld. Sr. Counsel thus submitted that A.Y.2009-\n10 may be considered as it covers all the issues alleged by the\nassessee in present appeals even on merits. The submissions of the\nLd. Sr. Counsel was acceptable to the Ld. DR.\nAccordingly, grounds pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10 raised by the\nassessee

THE INDIAN MERCHANTS CHAMBERS,,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4076/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) The Indian Merchants Chambers, Vs. Ddit(Exemption)-Ii(1), Imc Building, Imc Marg, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai-400020 Parel, Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati 00047 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Arvind Sonde राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.S.Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/ 06/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)- Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Is Basically Aggrieved For Decline Of Exemption U/S.11 On The Plea That Proviso To Section 2(15) Was Applicable To The Assessee Which Was Introduced W.E.F. Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is Registered As A Company U/S.25 Of The Companies Act, 1956. The Main Objects Of The Assessee Trust Inter Alia Are To Promote, Advance & Protect Trade, Commerce & Industry In India. The Ao Held That The Assessee Was Not Imparting Education In Pursuance Of Its Objects. He Held That The Activity Of Organizing Seminars, The Definition Of Education. The Assessee Was Running Certain Seminars

section 2(15) of the Act without appreciating the basic principle laid down by the Court based on the facts of the case. 7. That on the acts and the circumstances of the case of the appellant the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the TDS disallowance