MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1 THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in running various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTION) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income\ntax Act.\n\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in\nrunning various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found\nthat the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A\nsurvey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

MUMBRA SHIKHSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,THANE vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) - THANE, DY. CIT (CENTRAL CIRCLE) - 1, THANE, THANE

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are\npartly allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income\ntax Act.\n\n3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust engaged in\nrunning various educational institutions. The Assessing Officer found\nthat the assessee did not file any return of income since AY 2012-13. A\nsurvey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. MUNIWAR ABAD CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanito, Vs. Muniwar Abad Charitable 618, Mtnl Cumballa Hill Telephone Trust, Exchange Building, Peddar Road, 405A, 407, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Maharashtra – 400 026 10, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaatm0140K (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 21.05.2024 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Charitable Trust registered with the Directorate of Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai u/s 12A of the Act. Assessee has filed its return of income

CREDIT GUARANTEE FUND TRUST FOR MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT EXEMPTION-1(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarcredit Guarantee Fund Vs. Dcit(E) – 1(1) Trust Mumbai. 1St Floor, Sidbi Swavalaman Bhavan, Avenue – 3, Lane 2, G-Block, Bkc, Bandra (E) Pan/Gir No. Aaatc2613D (Applicant) (Respondent)

12A for exemption u/s 11. The CIT rejected the application on the ground that (a) the objects showed a profit motive, (b) the assessee was charging an interest rate which was higher than that charged by banks & (c) the activity of giving loans was a business activity and not a "charitable purpose" u/s 2(15). On appeal by the assessee

M/S HINGLAJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A)-NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, penalty for both the years are deleted on this technical ground before going into the merits of the cases

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe periods of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or Tribunal could condone delay) and termination of proceedings. Referred Cognizance For Extension of Limitation

M/S HINGALJ METALS & ALLOYS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT(A), NFAC,DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result, penalty for both the years are deleted on this technical ground before going into the merits of the cases

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe periods of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or Tribunal could condone delay) and termination of proceedings. Referred Cognizance For Extension of Limitation

SULTAN SINGH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

u/s. 271F, 271 AAC of the Act. 8. First of all it is submitted that During the period when he was struggling with the psychological and mental issues of the loss of reputation, he approached to one of the tax consultant at his native place Mr. Bharat Shain and asked him to look after the tax matters

SULTAN SINGH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhri

u/s. 271F, 271 AAC of the Act. 8. First of all it is submitted that During the period when he was struggling with the psychological and mental issues of the loss of reputation, he approached to one of the tax consultant at his native place Mr. Bharat Shain and asked him to look after the tax matters

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

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee

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

penalty proceeding may be initiated u/s 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 10,000/- for non-compliance of notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, as mentioned above.” 8. We further noticed that during the course of proceeding u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act in response to notice u/s 142(1) the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-2(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) is initiated on this issue. 8. MEDA is following cash system of accounting, receipts from parties towards road restoration must be treated as income on receipt basis and expenses towards repair restoration of road should be accounted on payment basis. The comparison of figures with last previous year's figure will also indicate towards the above stated

VISHAL MUMBAI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO(E) 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

12A under Registration No. TR/6455 dated 29.06.1973.\nDuring the course of assessment, the assessing officer observed that\nassessee has claimed exemptions u/s 11(1) & 11(2) in respect of income\napplied for charitable purposes during the year. In response to notice\nu/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has filed various details including\ncopy of audited balance sheet

VISHAL MUMBAI SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO(E) 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

12A under Registration No. TR/6455 dated 29.06.1973. During the course of assessment, the assessing officer observed that assessee has claimed exemptions u/s 11(1) & 11(2) in respect of income applied for charitable purposes during the year. In response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has filed various details including copy of audited balance sheet

SIR RATAN TATA TRUST,MUMBAI SUBURBAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am Sir Ratan Tata Trust Dy. Cit(Exemption) – 2(1) Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Mtnl Tele Bulding, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Peddar Road, Mumbai-400 026

penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 271(1)X(C) of the Act in absence Trust furnishing inaccurate particulars of income considering it to be consequential not require specific finding. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public Charitable Trust engaged in charitable activities in the field of education, medical relief and social welfare, created under