TATA EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

11 of the Act, since upon withdrawal of the registration or in any event cancellation of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, it would not comply with the requirements of Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal

SARVAJANIK SEVA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

11 of the Act, since upon withdrawal of the registration or in any event cancellation of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, it would not comply with the requirements of Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal

TATA SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

11 of the Act, since upon withdrawal of the registration or in any event cancellation of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, it would not comply with the requirements of Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal

R D TATA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Assessment Year: 2019-20

11 of the Act, since upon withdrawal of the registration or in any event cancellation of the registration under Section 12A of the Act, it would not comply with the requirements of Section 12A(1)(a) read with 12AA(4) of the Act". The clear language of the letter suggests that the Trust understood it was only "upon" withdrawal

ASIA SOCIETY INDIA CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION)-1(1), MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

11(3) of the Act had come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in a writ petition challenging the initiation of re-assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. While quashing the reassessment

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. It has given the premises

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. It has given the premises

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. It has given the premises

DY.CIT (E) -2(1) , MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 4) The applicability of Section 13(2)(b) arises when any property of the trust is made available to specified persons exclusively. If the property is made available to everyone irrespective of whether they are specified persons or not, then provisions of Section 13(2)(b) of the Act do not apply. It has given the premises

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE 2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KAUTILYA BHAVAN BANDRA MUMBAI vs. TATA EDUCATION TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

TATA EDUCATION TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 11 and therefore, is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jasubhai Foundation (supra). 6.2. Assessee thus, made out a case that the reassessment

THE BHATIA GENERAL HOSPITAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

reassessment order passed was illegal and bad in law on account of the fact that: It was not based on any new tangible material, but on the basis of material already available on record It was due to a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts considered in the original assessment proceedings It amounted to review

THE BHATIA GENERAL HOSPITAL,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhri

reassessment order passed was illegal and bad in law on account of the fact that: It was not based on any new tangible material, but on the basis of material already available on record It was due to a mere change of opinion on the same set of facts considered in the original assessment proceedings It amounted to review

ESTATE OF VANDRAVAN P SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI

In the result all the three captioned appeals are dismissed

Bench: Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

reassessment and recovery of tax in respect of income earned by a deceased person up to the date of his death. The section creates a deceased person up to the date of his death. The section deceased person up to the date of his death. The section legal fiction whereby the legal representative steps into the shoes of legal fiction

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

11,32,413/- was made under Section 37\n==End of OCR for page 10==\nof the Act in respect of identical payments made to motor car\ndealers by the Assessee. After referring to the tangible material,\nthe Assessing Officer initiate reassessment

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.\"\n8. We have heard the both the sides in relation

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 3 to\n7 raised by the Assessee pertaining to merits of such\nadditions/disallowances are dismissed as having been rendered\ninfructuous

Bench: "CLEAN_TEXT": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\n\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

reassessment order passed under section\n143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act (‘the\nAct’) as valid.\n\n2.\nThe CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that in the reasons\nrecorded, the AO has not disclosed any specific non-\ndisclosure of material facts by the appellant.”\n\n8.\nWe have heard the both the sides