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

aa) of the Act could be cancelled and riot in any other circumstances. In the instant case, the registration of the respondent-entity was sought to be cancelled on the basis of the insertion of the proviso to sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act on the premise that the activity carried out by the respondent was purely

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

aa) of the Act could be cancelled and riot in any other circumstances. In the instant case, the registration of the respondent-entity was sought to be cancelled on the basis of the insertion of the proviso to sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act on the premise that the activity carried out by the respondent was purely

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

aa) of the Act could be cancelled and riot in any other circumstances. In the instant case, the registration of the respondent-entity was sought to be cancelled on the basis of the insertion of the proviso to sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act on the premise that the activity carried out by the respondent was purely

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

aa) of the Act could be cancelled and riot in any other circumstances. In the instant case, the registration of the respondent-entity was sought to be cancelled on the basis of the insertion of the proviso to sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act on the premise that the activity carried out by the respondent was purely

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

aa) of the Act could be cancelled and riot in any other circumstances. In the instant case, the registration of the respondent-entity was sought to be cancelled on the basis of the insertion of the proviso to sub-section (15) of Section 2 of the Act on the premise that the activity carried out by the respondent was purely

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property’. The provisions of Section 23(4) of the Act are meant only for properties that are held as investments and not as stock in trade. We find that decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mangla Homes Pvt. Ltd., reported in 325 ITR 281 would not be applicable in the instant case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or (b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section 113, or (c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified area

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or (b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section 113, or (c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish under the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be the Special Planning Authority for developing the notified area

ROSHAN CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Roshan Charitable Trust, C/O 29Th Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bank Street, Sonawala Building-Fort, 6Th Vs. (Exemptions), Floor, Piramal Mumbai-400023 Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan: Aactr2405A .. Appellant Respondent .. P.J. Pardiwala, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. K.B. Shukla (Citdr.) Date Of Hearing .. 27-10-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 04-11-2016

property. The particulars of the trust given in the application are correct. The trust is named and styled as “Roshan Charitable Trust.” 8. In support of the contents of application Ex.1, the applicant has filed his affidavit at Ex.11. On the basis, the documents produced on the record, I hold that, the trust is entitled to be registered under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

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

aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area\nDevelopment Act, 1976, or\n\n(b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section\n113,\n\nor\n\n(c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish\nunder the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be\nthe Special Planning Authority for developing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

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

aa) appoint the Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area\nDevelopment Act, 1976, or\n\n(b) appoint any Development Authority declared under sub-section (3A) of section\n113,\nor\n\n(c) appoint the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority establish\nunder the Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974, to be\nthe Special Planning Authority for developing

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

12A of the Act and\nincorporated with the main object of promoting education. The assessee is part of\nD Y Patil group of charitable institutions. The assessee is running Engineering,\nArchitecture and other courses at Navi Mumbai. There was a search operation\nunder Section 132 on the group entities i.e. D Y Patil University (Navi Mumbai),\nits trustees, certain employees

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

AA was cancelled by the learned Director of Exemptions, the Assessing Officer declined benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that in view of proviso to Section 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

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

AA was cancelled by the learned Director of Exemptions, the Assessing Officer declined benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that in view of proviso to Section 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

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

AA was cancelled by the learned Director of Exemptions, the Assessing Officer declined benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Assessing Officer further noted that in view of proviso to Section 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

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

property was not held under trust. Therefore, the Board was not entitled to be registered as a charitable institution. It was the case of the Department that the Board was performing statutory functions. Development of minor ports in the State of Gujarat .cannot be termed as the work undertaking for charitable purposes and in the circumstances the CIT rejected

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

house of one of the\nemployees, the assessment in assessee's case was initiate by issue of notice under\nsection 153C. It is the claim of the assessee that the satisfaction note in assessee's\ncase was recorded only on 06.08.2018 and the said is to be considered as the date\nof search as per the proviso to section 153C

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

12A of the Act and\nincorporated with the main object of promoting education. The assessee is part of\nD Y Patil group of charitable institutions. The assessee is running Engineering,\nArchitecture and other courses at Navi Mumbai. There was a search operation\nunder section 132 on the group entities i.e. D Y Patil University (Navi Mumbai),\nits trustees, certain employees