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

NAVAJBAI RATAN TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 17, MUMBAI

Bench: Us, Are As Follows: Page 2 Of 47 1 A) The Impugned Order Dated 31.10.2019 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax-17 ('Pcit') Under Section 12Aa(3)/(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Ita') Cancelling The Registration Of The Appellant Is Without Jurisdiction And, Hence, Void Ab Initio.

5. It is therefore respectfully, submitted that there is no power for unilateral surrender provided for in the Act. 33. It is contended that the above submission is even buttressed by the clear legislative mandate of an Order in Writing being passed to cancel the registration. Hence, the legislature has consciously provided for an order of cancellation to be passed

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

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

5. It is therefore respectfully, submitted that there is no power for unilateral surrender provided for in the Act. 33. It is contended that the above submission is even buttressed by the clear legislative mandate of an Order in Writing being passed to cancel the registration. Hence, the legislature has consciously provided for an order of cancellation to be passed

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

5. It is therefore respectfully, submitted that there is no power for unilateral surrender provided for in the Act. 33. It is contended that the above submission is even buttressed by the clear legislative mandate of an Order in Writing being passed to cancel the registration. Hence, the legislature has consciously provided for an order of cancellation to be passed

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

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

5. It is therefore respectfully, submitted that there is no power for unilateral surrender provided for in the Act. 33. It is contended that the above submission is even buttressed by the clear legislative mandate of an Order in Writing being passed to cancel the registration. Hence, the legislature has consciously provided for an order of cancellation to be passed

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

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

5. It is therefore respectfully, submitted that there is no power for unilateral surrender provided for in the Act. 33. It is contended that the above submission is even buttressed by the clear legislative mandate of an Order in Writing being passed to cancel the registration. Hence, the legislature has consciously provided for an order of cancellation to be passed

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

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

5. It is therefore respectfully, submitted that there is no power for unilateral surrender provided for in the Act. 33. It is contended that the above submission is even buttressed by the clear legislative mandate of an Order in Writing being passed to cancel the registration. Hence, the legislature has consciously provided for an order of cancellation to be passed

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

11(5) or Section 13\nof the IT Act, in finalizing the petitioner's assessment for the assessment\nyear in question. On such a backdrop, on a plain reading of the reasons for\nreopening as furnished to the petitioner, it is clear that the Assessing\nOfficer has sought to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion\nin the application

SHREE SAI BABA SANTHAN TRUST MUMBAI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the\nappeal of the Revenue is dismissed

11(5) or Section 13\nof the IT Act, in finalizing the petitioner's assessment for the assessment\nyear in question. On such a backdrop, on a plain reading of the reasons for\nreopening as furnished to the petitioner, it is clear that the Assessing\nOfficer has sought to reopen the assessment on a change of opinion\nin the application

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(2) and (3) of the Act. 3. The petitioner is a scientific research society approved by the competent authority under section 35(1)(ii) for research activity in the field of coronary diseases and other connected fields. In this writ petition we are concerned with the validity of the notices issued by the assessing officer under section

THE TATA POWER CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO RG 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3078/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) The Tata Power Co. Ltd, The Asst. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Corporate Center, Block ‘B, Income Tax- Circle V. 5 Th Floor, 2(3),Aayakar Bhavan, 34, Sant Tukaram Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Carnac Bunder, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 009. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact0054A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

reassess such income. The A.O. clearly had reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment and the same can be reopened under the provisions of Section 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held that in the instant case since the assessment has been reopened within four years from the end of the assessment year, the proviso to section

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI vs. JASLOK HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE , MUMBAI

reassessment proceedings were void-ab-initio\n3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating that no new facts or tangible material have come to the knowledge of the assessing officer reopening of the assessment.\n4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend and/or delete in all the foregoing grounds of appeal.”\nITA No.2677.Mum/2024

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs. SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the I. T. Act.\nIn form 10B submitted during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 13-14, the assessee has claimed that there are no investments held at any time during the previous year in concerns in which persons referred to in section 13(3) have a substantial interest.\nHowever, on perusal

ACIFFT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment; wholly or partly, such effect would be given within three months from the end of the month on which such appellate order is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, or passed by the revisional authority; as the case may be. Proviso to sub-section (5), however, provides that where

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT RANGE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment; wholly or partly, such effect would be given within three months from the end of the month on which such appellate order is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, or passed by the revisional authority; as the case may be. Proviso to sub-section (5), however, provides that where

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment; wholly or partly, such effect would be given within three months from the end of the month on which such appellate order is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, or passed by the revisional authority; as the case may be. Proviso to sub-section (5), however, provides that where

ACIT, CIRCLE -2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

reassessment; wholly or partly, such effect would be given within three months from the end of the month on which such appellate order is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, or passed by the revisional authority; as the case may be. Proviso to sub-section (5), however, provides that where