TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- "1. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Ld. CIT(A)'] erred in, upholding the order under section 143(3) of the Act, inasmuch as it is alleged that the provisions of section 13(2)(h) are attracted in the present case. 2. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding denial of exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act to dividend income of Rs. 12,06,00,000/-and u/s 10(35) of the Act to the income from units of Rs. 32,504/-, inclusion of the same for the purpose of section 11 of the Act and holding that the same is chargeable at maximum marginal rate. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing carry forward of deficit of Rs. 10,04,20,531/- for adjustment in subsequent years. 4. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act on the additions not envisaged by the Appellant. 5. On the facts and under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d with the reasoning of the AO that once assessee is covered u/s. 11 of the Act it is not entitled to claim exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. He also agreed with the AO that the assessee did violate the conditions of Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. Thereafter, relying upon a decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs. Working Women's Forum [2015] 53 taxmann.com 85 (Madras), the First Appellate Authority held that once claim of exemption in respect of a particular item of income is rejected, income has to be taxed at the maximum marginal rate. However, granting partial relief to the assessee, the First Appellate Authority held that the maximum marginal rate would apply only to dividend income of Rs. 10,55,25,000/- as it is in violation of Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2)(h) of the Act. In so far as interest income of Rs. 74,48,000/- and other income of Rs. 1,93,53,844/- are concerned, the First Appellate Authority held that it should be taxed at normal rate. 7. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted, assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income and units of mutual fund cannot be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aised (supra) in the present assessee's case/appeals before this Tribunal, and the Tribunal upheld the action of Ld. CIT(A). For that the Ld. AR drew our attention to the decision of Tribunal in assesses Group trust case i.e. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Trust (ITA. No.1301/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2011-12), ITA. No.1316/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2011-12, ITA. No.1302/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2012-13, ITA. No.1314/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2012-13, ITA. No.2115/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2013-14, ITA. No.2161/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2013-14, ITA. No.2116/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 & ITA. No.2162/Mum/2018 for A.Y.2014-15 wherein the cross appeals/appeal preferred by the revenue has been dismissed by this Tribunal by order dated 10.03.2022 wherein similar grounds appeal was raised by the revenue for A.Y.2011-12 which reads as under: - "(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption u/s. 10(34) of the Income tax Act to the tune of Rs. 115,47,80,338/- on the dividend received on shares without appreciating the fact that the income derived by the assessee trust is from the properties held under the trust and claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the I.T. Act. (ii) On the facts and ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the aforesaid grounds raised by the revenue has been adjudicated in assessee's favour by this Tribunal holding as under: - "11. The first issue to be decided in Revenue's appeal is with regard to the claim of exemption under section 10(34) of the Act on dividend income received on shares by the assessee. 11.1 The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue as emanating from record are: During the year under consideration, the assessee trust had received dividend income of Rs. 115,47,80,338 which was claimed as exempted under section 10(34) of the Act. 11.2 The AO vide order dated 18.03.2014 held that the assessee trust is not entitled to claim exemption under section 10(34) as assessee's entire income derived from the property held under trust is governed by the provision of section 11 of the Act. The AO further held that once there is violation under section 13 and as a result of same, exemption under section 11 is denied, assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34) because section 10(34) of the Act does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. 11.3 In appeal against the aforesaid disallowance, the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case i.e. M/s. Navajbhai Ratan Trust (supra), we are inclined to follow it since the department could not point out any change in facts or law. So on the same reasoning mutandis mutandis, we concur with the action of the Ld. CIT(A) allowing the claim of exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act and dismiss the ground nos. 1, 2 & 4 of the revenue appeal." 9. No contrary decision has been brought to our noticed by the Department. Facts being identical, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench, we hold that assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income and income from units should be allowed. The AO is directed to do so. This Ground is allowed. 10. In Ground No.3, the pertinent issue arising for consideration is whether the deficit arising due to excess expenditure/application of funds towards charitable purpose can be carried forward for adjustment/set off against the income of the subsequent years. 11. Briefly, the facts are, as a result of denial of assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income and income from units, the AO treated it as income of the trust, which was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;s own case for the assessment year 2008-09, in ITA no. 172/Mum./2013, dated 20th March 2014, the Tribunal following the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided the issue In favour of the assessee. Pertinently, while deciding the appeal filed by the Revenue against the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in ITA no.1589 of 2014, dated 6th March 2017, has upheld the decision by dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. As regards the contention of the Revenue that in case of MIDC, the SLP by the Revenue on identical issue is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we must observe, while deciding the SLP filed by the MIDC along with a bunch of similar appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona &Ors., have approved the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Institution of Banking Personnel Selection Services (supra) and various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts expressing similar view. In fact, the issue was set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the misc. application filed by the Revenue in Subros Educa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s appeal) A.Y. 2013-14 20. Grounds raised by the Department are as under: "1. 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allow the assessee appeal despite the fact that there is violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the LT. Act because of the investment by the Trust in prohibited mode of investment that it would lead?" 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allow the assessee appeal despite the fact that assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under section 10(34/35/38) because section 10(34/35/38) does not deal with income derived from property held under trust. Clearly in this case, section 164(2) is attracted". 2 "Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring that the investment made by the assessee in the shares of Tata Sons Ltd. is in clear violation of the provisions of the Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Diamond Bourse, (259 ITR 280), wherein, in similar circumstances the complete denial of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. was upheld?" ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1 of ITA No. 4883/Mum/2024 decided by us earlier in this order. Following our decision therein, this ground is kept open. 27. Ground No.2 relates to denial of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income and income from units. This ground is identical to Ground No.2 of ITA No. 4283/Mum/2024. Following our decision therein, we direct the AO to allow assessee's claim of exemption. This ground is allowed. 28. Ground No.3 being consequential in nature does not require adjudication. 29. In the result, appeal is partly allowed. ITA No. 4419/Mum/2024 (Revenue's appeal) A.Y. 2014-15 30. Grounds raised by the Department are as under: "1. 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allow the assessee appeal despite the fact that there is violation of provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the I.T. Act because of the investment by the Trust in prohibited mode of investment that it would lead?" 2 2. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the L.d. CIT(A) is justified in allow the assessee appeal despite the fact that assessee cannot claim alternative exemption under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Without prejudice to the above, if the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the Appellant's registration was active (contrary to the Tribunal's order), it should have granted the Appellant the benefit of section 11 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's order denying the exemption on the Dividend income and Income from units under section 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act respectively. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not reversing the AO's order inasmuch as he has denied a part of the Appellant's claim of deduction u/s. 80G of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying deduction under section 80GGA of the Act stating that the Trust has not claimed such deduction in the return of income even though deduction is clubbed with deduction claimed u/s 80G of the Act, as there was no separate tab in ITR -5 to claim such deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act and therefore the claim made by clubbing the deduction u/s 80G and 80GGA ought to have been allowed." 35. In Ground Nos. 1 to 4, the assessee has raised the issue of denial of claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act in respect of dividend income and income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d before the lower authorities and drew our attention to the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Jamsetji Tata Trust in ITA No. 7239/Mum/2019, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench drawing support from the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Navajbai Ratan Tata Trust vs. PCIT in ITA No. 7238/Mum/2019, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench held as under:- "Our conclusions: 68. In view of the above discussions, as also bearing in mind the entirety of the case, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of cancellation of registration granted to the assessee under section 12A must be held to be effective from the date on which the hearing on first show-cause notice was concluded and the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner was formally acquiesced by the assessee in the said hearing, i.e., 20' March 2015, since, without disposing of the said matter, the Commissioner, or his successors, could not have started other parallel proceedings for cancellation of registration obtained under section 12A. The registration having been "obtained" under section 12A was in the nature of a benefit to the assessee, and it was, therefore, entirely at the option ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show cause as to why registration under section 12A not be cancelled, and the assessee formally acquiesced to the said notice 10.03.2015, i.e on 20th March 2015. 9. As no distinguishing decision has been brought to our notice, respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench (supra), we decline to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A)." 40. Facts being identical and no contrary decision having been brought to our notice by the Department, we respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Jamshetji Tata Trust (Supra) we allow assessee's claim of exemption u/s. 10(34) and 10(35) of the Act. This ground is allowed. 41. In Ground Nos. 5 and 6, the assessee has contested the denial of deduction claimed u/s. 80G and 80GGA of the Act. 42. Briefly the facts are, in the return of income filed for the assessment year under dispute, the assessee had claimed deduction for an amount of Rs. 3,89,36,723/- u/s. 80G of the Act. Whereas, in the computation of income, he claimed further deduction of Rs. 2,51,41,000/- u/s. 80GGA of the Act. While considering assessee's claim, the AO observed that as per Section 80G(4) of the Act donation m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....92,156/-. These deductions were claimed in the computation of income by the assessee but in the return of income, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80G of the Act only for which the assessee furnished necessary proof. However, as per the provisions of Section 80G(4), the donation made in excess of credits of sums in respect of deduction has to be allowed u/s 80G of the Act. As mentioned hereinabove, in the computation the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act but in the return of income, only deduction u/s 80G of the Act was claimed. The AO accordingly rejected the claim of deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act. 6. When the matter was agitated before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that since there is no column in the return in ITR-V for claiming deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act, therefore such deduction could not be claimed by the assessee due to this technical reason and accordingly directed the AO to allow the claim subject to his satisfaction of other conditions laid down in this regard. 7. We find that similar difficulty arose and was considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of RD Tata Trust in ITA No. 4075/Mum/2023. The relevant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction u/s. 80G and 80GGA of the Act after factual verification. This ground is allowed. 47. In the result, appeal is allowed. ITA No. 4496/Mum/2024 (Assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2016-17 48. Grounds No. 1 to 4 are identical to Ground No. 1 to 4 of ITA No. 4156/Mum/2024 decided earlier in the order. Decision taken therein by us will apply mutatis mutandis to these grounds as well. Hence, grounds are allowed. 49. In Ground Nos. 5 and 6, the assessee has contested the disallowance of claim of exemption u/s. 80G and 80GGA of the Act. These grounds are identical to Ground Nos. 5 and 6 in ITA No. 4151/Mum/2024 decided in the earlier part of the order. The decision taken therein will apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. 50. In the result, appeal is allowed. ITA No. 4727/Mum/2024 (Assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2016-17 51. This appeal arises out of rectification proceeding u/s. 154 of the Act. In view of our decision in the main quantum appeal, being ITA No. 4496/Mum/2024 (Supra) this appeal has become infructuous. Hence, dismissed. ITA No. 4835/Mum/2024 (Assessee's appeal) A.Y. 2017-18 52. Effective ground raised by the assessee are as under: "1. On the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re allowed. 56. Ground No.6 being consequential does not require adjudication. 57. In the result, appeal is allowed. ITA No. 4873/Mum/2024 (Revenue's appeal) A.Y. 2017-18 58. Grounds raised by the Department are as under: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['ld. CIT(A)'] erred in concluding that the registration of the Trust under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act') was still in force in complete disregard of the order passed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its own case which had held that its registration had ceased with effect from 20th March, 2015. 2. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have held that the provisions of sections 11 to 13 of the Act are not applicable to the Appellant as its registration u/s. 12A of the Act had been surrendered on 19.02.2015. 3. Without prejudice to the above, if the Id CIT(A) was of the opinion that the Appellant's registration was active (contrary to the Tribunal's order), it should have granted the Appellant the benefit of section 11 of the Act. 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding the A....