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

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

SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEALS) NFAC, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross\nappeal 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\nproceedings for AY 13-14, the assessee has claimed that there\nare no investments held at any time during the previous year in\nconcerns in which persons referred to in section 13(3) have a\nsubstantial interest.\nHowever, on perusal

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 ()

5), be limited to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the liability. which the estate is capable of meeting the liability.” 9.3 On perusal of the provisions above On perusal of the provisions above, we find that the we find that the Section 159 of the Income-tax Act provides a complete code for assessment

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 has been initiated merely on the basis of change of opinion on the same set of AY 2009-10 facts and records which were available at the time

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 has been initiated merely on the basis of change of opinion on the same set of AY 2009-10 facts and records which were available at the time

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 has been initiated merely on the basis of change of opinion on the same set of AY 2009-10 facts and records which were available at the time

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

MR. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-28(3)(1), VASHI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

11[section 250 or] section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 12[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be,] on or after

ITO-28(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATYA PRAKASH SINGH, MUMBAI

In the result, the ground so taken by the assessee so far as it relates to challenging the order of the AO as passed beyond the period of limitation is hereby allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

11[section 250 or] section 254 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or, as the case may be, the order under section 263 or section 264 is passed by the 12[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be,] on or after

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos 2460,2462, 2657,\n2676 & 2677/Mum/2024 are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee\nbearing C

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 - CENTRAL CIRCLE -8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JASLOK HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue bearing ITA Nos 2460,2462, 2657,\n2676 & 2677/Mum/2024 are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee\nbearing C

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

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

reassessment order be modified by holding that your appellant\nis entitled to the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12:\n3. The addition of corpus donations of Rs 3,64,60,524 be deleted.\nThe above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one\nanother.\nYour appellant craves leave to add to, modify or delete

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

reassessment order be modified by holding that your appellant\nis entitled to the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12:\n3. The addition of corpus donations of Rs 3,64,60,524 be deleted.\nThe above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one\nanother.\nYour appellant craves leave to add to, modify or delete

MEHLI MEHTA MUSIC FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2(4), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment\nyear 2009-10 stands partly allowed and appeals for assessment\nyears 2014-15, 2016-17 and 2017-18 stands allowed

reassessment order be modified by holding that your appellant\nis entitled to the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12:\n3. The addition of corpus donations of Rs 3,64,60,524 be deleted.\nThe above grounds are independent of and without prejudice to one\nanother.\nYour appellant craves leave to add to, modify or delete

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. INDIAN EDUCATION SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 11(5) of the Act was Rs. 1,87,05,42,477/-. So it can be confirmed that assessee is maintaining the corpus as per the conditions prescribed u/s. 11(1) (d) r.w.s. 11(5) of the Act. To support our view we relied upon the following judicial pronouncement of coordinate bench as under: “[2011] 12 taxmann.com 375 (Visakhapatnam