ITO WD 4(4), THANE vs. VIDYAVARDHINI TRUST, THANE

In the result, all these three appeals filed in all the above said years, involving identical facts, are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Respondent and by Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, Departmental Representative (DR) on behalf of the Revenue. 3. During the course of hearing, Ld. DR has placed reliance on the penalty order passed by the AO whereas, Ld. Counsel of the assessee

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

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

2. The 1st ground raised by the revenue in these appeals is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 19,32,354/- for the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 18,62,354/- for the A.Y. 2008-09 imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there is no concealment

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

2. The 1st ground raised by the revenue in these appeals is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 19,32,354/- for the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 18,62,354/- for the A.Y. 2008-09 imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that there is no concealment

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 ()

penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- for the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 18,62,354/- for the A.Y. 2008- 09 u/s 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

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 ()

penalty of Rs. 19,32,534/- for the A.Y. 2007-08 and Rs. 18,62,354/- for the A.Y. 2008- 09 u/s 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

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

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant as premature. The Assessee prays that the learned AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings so initiated. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the hearing of the appeal‟‟. 2.2 Rival contentions have been heard and records perused. Facts

MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANDRA RECLAMATION vs. DCIT (EXEM) - 2, MUMBAI, PEDDER ROAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

u/s 271(1)(c) on the basis of notice us 274 r.ws 271(1)(c) wherein no specific charge of either tiling of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income was mentioned and thereby passing the order of penalty which is to be quashed as per recent judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 2. The assessee is a charitable

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nehru Centre Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), 13Th Floor, Discovery Of Mumbai India Building, Dr 603, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Annie Besant Road, Telephone Exchange Worli, Mumbai – Building, Dr. Gd Deshmukh 400018. Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Pan: Aaatn2536J Hill, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income on 11.11.2011 alongwith the income expenditure account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report in form no. 10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2012 followed by notice u/s. 142(1) dated 16.08.2013. In response

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. NEHRU CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan & & Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Nehru Centre Income Tax Exemptions 2(1), 13Th Floor, Discovery Of Mumbai India Building, Dr 603, 6Th Floor, Mtnl Annie Besant Road, Telephone Exchange Worli, Mumbai – Building, Dr. Gd Deshmukh 400018. Marg, Peddar Road, Cumbala Pan: Aaatn2536J Hill, Mumbai – 400026. (Appellant) (Respondent)

12A of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income on 11.11.2011 alongwith the income expenditure account, Balance Sheet and Audit Report in form no. 10B declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 22.09.2012 followed by notice u/s. 142(1) dated 16.08.2013. In response

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 (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\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