“corpus fund”

Pryas Ek Pahel, Gurgaon vs. CIT(E), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant society stands allowed

Bench: Shrianil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing) Pryas Ek Pahel, Vs. Cit(E), Ca, Mr.Sahu, M Sahu& Chandigarh Associates, Ca, H. No. 651, Ff, Sec-10A, Near Meenakshi Public School, Gurgaon Pan: Aadtp0780F (Appellant) (Respondent)

filed its ITR and therefore no tax has been paid. The applicant should have added the amount shown against corpus fund during the year into its income and then it should have filed the correct ITR and paid taxes. Unless the legitimate tax against the income as discussed above ... record. The Ld. Commissioner rejected the application u/s 12 AA of the Appellant on the sole ground “that the Assessee has shown the corpus fund to the extent of Rs. 4 lacks in its balance sheet for the F.Y. 2017-18, which is the income of the applicant and thus

ACIT(E), Circle-1(1), New Delhi vs. Divya Jyoti Jagrati Sansthan, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

case of the AO was that though assessee is a charitable institution carrying out the charitable activities, however has disallowed donations made for the corpus fund and voluntary donation on the ground that the same could not be verified by the assessee and accordingly he has taxed the donations under

Akhil Bhartiya Shree Vekunthnath Sewa Dharmarth Trust Vrindaban, Hisar vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chandigarh

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarm/S Akhil Bhartiya Shree Commissioner Of Income Vekunthnath Sewa Tax (E), Dharmarth Trust C.R Building, Sector-17E, Vrindaban, Vs. Chandigarh-160017 H. No.1336-37, Sector-14P, Hisar, (Haryana) Pan-Aacta8982H Assessee Revenue

charitable act; • that corpus donations had not been obtained to be utilized right at the very outset of the activities of the Trust; • that corpus funds were permanent funds retained for the basic expenditure needed for the administration and survival of the Trust; • that the corpus funds are generally

Abhay Shrivastva, Faridabad vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalurur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Abhay Shrivastva, Vs Dcit, 501, Sears Vth Floor, Sector-86, Cpc, Faridabad, Haryana-121007. Bengaluru. Pan-Bgjps08499B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Gurjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.12.2021

subject to certain rigours of actual payment. Since the purpose of this statutory obligation cast on the employer is to provide for a corpus fund on retirement of the employees, mere creation of that liability and providing for it by way of book entries is not enough and its actual

DCIT, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Bhagwati Educational Society, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2010-11

learned CIT(A). 5.1 Brief facts qua the issue in dispute are that assessee received donation of ₹ 2,04,02,000/- towards corpus fund and on being asked by the Assessing Officer filed complete details of donation showing name and address of the donor, permanent account No., donation amount, mode

M/S. Indian Society for Technical Education, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Indian Society For Vs. Ito, Technical Education, Ward-1(2), C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Parti-I, New Delhi – 110 049. Pan: Aaati2760D (Appellant) (Respondent)

allowed to the assessee. However, he found that assessee is receiving membership and life membership fees, which are directly credited as part of the corpus fund instead of crediting it to the income and expenditure account. On being questioned, assessee submitted that membership and life membership fees is valid ... whole life and, therefore, same is taken to the corpus fund. The ld. AO rejected the contentions and held that these fees are voluntary in nature and are not given with specific direction as mandated on Section 11(1) (d) of the Act. Further the members have paid their membership

JCIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi vs. Agriculture Insurance Company of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

erred in deleting addition of Rs.8,75,13,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of income earned on investment of corpus fund.” 2 I.T.As. No.366 & 367/DEL/2018 2. At the outset, ld. counsel submitted that this issue raised by the Revenue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal ... case was reopened u/s.148 by the Assessing Officer on the ground that assessee has been earning income of Rs.875.13 lac from investing in corpus funds which was not credited in the P&L account. In response, assessee had submitted that the corpus fund pertains to the Government and the income

Imc of Iti Dadri, Dadri vs. ITO (Exemptuion) Ward, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 529/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Imc Of Iti Dadri, Vs Ito (Exemption) Ward, C/O Government Iti Dadri, Ghaziabad Choulas Road, Dadri, G.B. Nagar, U.P.-203207 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaai5190A Assessee By : Sh. Ashwini Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.03.2021

create administrative, technical, ministerial and other posts in accordance with the agreed Institute Development Plan. (xi) To arrange and provide sufficient amount as corpus fund so that the Society may proceed for achieving its aims and objects confidently. (xii) To solicit, receive and accept funds, aids, grants, services and contributions

DCIT, Exemption- Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Jai Maa Savitri Educational Society, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, in view the discussion made as above, it is held that the AO was not justified in making addition of Rs.3.94 crore u/s 115BBC of the Act and the same is hereby deleted. Ground of appea...

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

management, architecture, BBA and BCA courses. While perusing the audited balance sheet filed by the assessee, AO noticed that the assessee has introduced huge corpus fund amounting to Rs.10,86,05,000/- during the year under assessment and out of the donations of Rs.2,56,28,000/- amount of Rs.2

CIT vs. Sadhana Foundation

The appeal is dismissed

After going into the nature of the said amount received by the Assessee, he held that it was a donation in the nature of corpus funds. He also took the view that even if this amount is included in the income of the Assessee still there would be no addition

Dy.Dir. of I.T vs. Shanti Devi Progressive Edu.Socy

year dated 29.03.1996. 3. There were three components which were closely scrutinized by the Assessing Officer: i) Admission Fee of Rs.7,12,000/-. ii) Corpus Fund of Rs.17,24,085/-. iii) Loan from parents amounting to Rs.10,85,000/-. 4. The assessment order dated 29.03.1996 records that ... taken to the balance sheet and it had not been explained as to why this amount was being treated differently from other amounts. The Corpus Fund had come from students and there was no confirmation from the assessee as to who were the donors regarding this fund and thus