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

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

u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay vide registration no. TR/10925 dated 15.03.1976 3. However, it is seen from the records

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

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

u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay vide registration no. TR/10925 dated 15.03.1976 3. However, it is seen from the records

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.

u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Page 12 of 47 Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay vide registration no. TR/10925 dated 15.03.1976 3. However

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

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

u/s 12AA of registration granted under section 12A to Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust- reg- Kindly refer to the above. 2. Navajibai Ratan Tata Trust was granted registration under section 12 A of the Income Tax Act, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay vide registration no. TR/10925 dated 15.03.1976 3. However, it is seen from the records

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. DEPTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

u/s. 11 of the Act on the surplus accumulated by the assessee, which is contrary to the 2nd proviso to section 12A of the Act and the said provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: Section 12A(2) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Where an application has been made on or after

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

u/s. 11 of the Act on the surplus accumulated by the assessee, which is contrary to the 2nd proviso to section 12A of the Act and the said provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: Section 12A(2) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Where an application has been made on or after

MAHARASTRA NURSING COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

u/s. 11 of the Act on the surplus accumulated by the assessee, which is contrary to the 2nd proviso to section 12A of the Act and the said provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: Section 12A(2) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Where an application has been made on or after

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

u/s. 11 of the Act on the surplus accumulated by the assessee, which is contrary to the 2nd proviso to section 12A of the Act and the said provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: Section 12A(2) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Where an application has been made on or after

MAHARASHTRA NURSING COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) -2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am

u/s. 11 of the Act on the surplus accumulated by the assessee, which is contrary to the 2nd proviso to section 12A of the Act and the said provision is cited herein under for ease of reference: Section 12A(2) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (2) Where an application has been made on or after

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved by the DSIR

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved by the DSIR

DCIT -CC-1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. , MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved by the DSIR

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved by the DSIR

DCIT - CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved by the DSIR

DCIT- CC- 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved by the DSIR

ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved by the DSIR

JT. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), MUMBAI vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 35(2AB) in respect of R&D expenses incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 7,50,139/-, on the basis of report received from Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR). 109. The assessee has in-house Research and Development facilities at three locations, Khor (MP), Kharia Khangar (Rajashthan) and Taloja (Maharashtra) which are approved by the DSIR

YASH DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 27(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Yash Developers, Dcit-27(3), 1St Flr Anand, 7Th Road, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Maryland Apartment, D.K. Vs. Station Complex, Sandhu Marg, Chembur, Vashi-400703 Mumbai-400071. Pan No. Aaafy 6171 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mandar Vaidya, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harmesh Lal, Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/02/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

2 SCR 345. Dealing with the point raised, this court held as under : raised, this court held as under : "The other attack that the rectification order is beyond "The other attack that the rectification order is beyond "The other attack that the rectification order is beyond the point of time provided in rule 38 of the Mysore the point