DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawal

House Property as exempt u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of assessee clearly Julis under the proviso to section 2(15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

House Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Property as exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

House Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Property as exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

House Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Property as exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

House Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Property as exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

House Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Property as exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION)- 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SAURASHTRA TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, on parity of reasoning, appeals pertaining to the aforesaid assessment years are also dismissed

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

House Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 & 2018-19 Property as exempt u/s11 of the Act to the assessee without appreciating the fact that the case of asssssee clearly falls under the proviso to section 2(15

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

DCIT(E)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bledcit (E) – 2(1) V. Nehru Centre Room No. 519, 5Th Floor Discovery Of India Building Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug 13Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaatn2536J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dilip Thakkar Department By : Shri Dilipkumar Shah

house property and thus the provisions of section 11(4A) and proviso to section 2(15) will not apply in the assessee

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

Housing, Mayor of Mumbai, etc. (Pg. 7 of PB), d. Section 12 deals with the powers and functions of the Authority. (Pg. 13 of PB) e. Section 20 provides that the property, funds and assets of the Appellant is to be held and applied for the purpose of the Appellant. (Pg. 19 of PB). 3. The Appellant may also refer

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

Housing, Mayor of Mumbai, etc. (Pg. 7 of PB), d. Section 12 deals with the powers and functions of the Authority. (Pg. 13 of PB) e. Section 20 provides that the property, funds and assets of the Appellant is to be held and applied for the purpose of the Appellant. (Pg. 19 of PB). 3. The Appellant may also refer

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

Housing, Mayor of Mumbai, etc. (Pg. 7 of PB), d. Section 12 deals with the powers and functions of the Authority. (Pg. 13 of PB) e. Section 20 provides that the property, funds and assets of the Appellant is to be held and applied for the purpose of the Appellant. (Pg. 19 of PB). 3. The Appellant may also refer

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

Housing, Mayor of Mumbai, etc. (Pg. 7 of PB), d. Section 12 deals with the powers and functions of the Authority. (Pg. 13 of PB) e. Section 20 provides that the property, funds and assets of the Appellant is to be held and applied for the purpose of the Appellant. (Pg. 19 of PB). 3. The Appellant may also refer

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

Housing, Mayor of Mumbai, etc. (Pg. 7 of PB), d. Section 12 deals with the powers and functions of the Authority. (Pg. 13 of PB) e. Section 20 provides that the property, funds and assets of the Appellant is to be held and applied for the purpose of the Appellant. (Pg. 19 of PB). 3. The Appellant may also refer

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

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

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

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