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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gainfully refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust Vs UOI (273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gainfully refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust Vs UOI (273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gainfully refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust Vs UOI (273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

gainfully refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shri Marudhar Kesari Sthanakwasi Jain Yadgar Samiti Trust Vs UOI (273 ITR 425), which reads as follows:- “..we may notice that since the judgment was delivered in Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 227 ITR 578 (SC), Parliament has intervened

RAMKRISHNA BAJAJ CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

Charitable Trust Therefore, section 11 to 13 would not operate as overriding affect to the section 10 of the Act. The language of these provisions does not suggest that either section 10 is subjected to the provisions of section 11 to 13 or section 11 to 13 has any overriding affect over section 10. Therefore, the benefit of section

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 prescribing two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section4(1) and, two, must be computed in the manner laid down under the Act. The capital

SONAL ASHISH SONI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 30(3)(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2855/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sonal Ashish Soni बिधम/ Ito, Ward-30(3)(3) C/Om/S Shyam Jewellers Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vs. Shot No. 2-3-4, Guru Nanak C-13, Bandra Kurla Shopping Centre, Shankar Complex, Bandra (E), Lane, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Asgps9276A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 13.09.2022 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming Addition Of Rs.7,78,104/- As Against The Addition Of Rs.31,12,145/- Made By The Ao. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary & Income From House Property & Income From Other Sources. The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.60,680/- On 28.03.2017 For Ay. 2016-17. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Jointly With Her Family Member For A Value Of Rs.2,11,00,000/-. However, He Noted From The Purchase Agreement That The Circle Rate/

gains. Likewise, a business as a going concern would constitute a capital asset within the meaning of section 45 of the Act. Route permits, for plying buses, issued by authorities under the Motor Vehicle Act, are property for the deprivation of which compensation is payable to the permit holder, hence, such route permits are capital assets in the hands