PROBODHAN PRAKASHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Ramit Kochar, Hon'Ble

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the trust was denied exemption

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PABODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the ITA No. 3831 & 3833/MUM/2015

ITO (E) 2(2), MUMBAI vs. PRABHODHAN PRAKASHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the order of the AO before the learned CIT(A). It is found by the learned CIT(A) that the assessee trust was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act and also under the Bombay Public Trust Act by the Charity Commissioner. However, the ITA No. 3831 & 3833/MUM/2015

VIJAY B SHAH (HUF),,MUMBAI vs. ITO-17(3)(5),, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevijay B Shah (Huf) V. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(5) Room No.137 12A Giriraj Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road St Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aabhv7438J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt Samatha Mullamuddi

12A Giriraj Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road St Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 PAN: AABHV7438J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Smt Samatha Mullamuddi Date of Hearing : 26.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned

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

PRASHANT KIRIT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT 26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals are partly allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are invalid and bad in law. Prayer :- 1. In the light of the above grounds, your appellant prays that the above disallowances/additions be deleted as contrary to facts and law and the income as per the return be restored. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any of the above

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

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

JAYSHREE KIRIT SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT 26(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are invalid and bad in law.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return on 26.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.31,81,270/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, Subsequently, Information was received vide letter No. DDIT

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

B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 378/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA No.376/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No.374/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Mumbra Shikshan v/s. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Prasarak Mandal बनाम Thane / Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 16, Manpada Road, 1,6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Road Shubhangi Darshan, Near Number

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

B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 378/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA No.376/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No.374/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Mumbra Shikshan v/s. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Prasarak Mandal बनाम Thane / Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 16, Manpada Road, 1,6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Road Shubhangi Darshan, Near Number

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

B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 378/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA No.376/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No.374/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Mumbra Shikshan v/s. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Prasarak Mandal बनाम Thane / Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 16, Manpada Road, 1,6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Road Shubhangi Darshan, Near Number

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

B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 378/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA No.376/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA No.374/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Mumbra Shikshan v/s. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Prasarak Mandal बनाम Thane / Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 16, Manpada Road, 1,6th Floor, Ashar IT Park, Road Shubhangi Darshan, Near Number

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

B” BENCH,\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No. 379/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2012-13)\nITA No. 378/MUM/2024\n(A.Υ. 2013-14)\nITA No. 377/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2014-15)\nITA No.376/MUM/2024\n(Α.Υ. 2015-16)\nITA No.375/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2016-17)\nITA No.374/MUM/2024

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

B” BENCH,\nMUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\n\nITA No. 379/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2012-13)\nITA No. 378/MUM/2024\n(A.Υ. 2013-14)\nITA No. 377/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2014-15)\nITA No.376/MUM/2024\n(Α.Υ. 2015-16)\nITA No.375/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2016-17)\nITA No.374/MUM/2024

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

penalty proceedings on the above u/s 271(1)(c).” 5. The assessee has raised several issues in the above grounds of appeal and we shall deal the above issues raised by the assessee ground wise. 6. Ground No.1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, ground No.1 is dismissed. 7. Coming to Ground Nos. 2 to 12 which

DCIT-CC-8(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SOEX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dcit, Cc-8(1) Soex India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 656, Vs. 21St Floor, Nirmal Building, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 020

B. Addition of Rs 8,75,00,000/-u/s 35(1)) is made by relying on general statement. C. Addition of Rs 8,75,00,000/ results in taxing the same income twice which is impermissible in Law. 2.Brief Facts of the case are as follows: i) Assessee filed its Return of income for AY 2015-16 declaring total income