NATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY FEDERATION OF INDIA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

5 about awareness of solar energy power and the same was communicated in Form 10. Therefore exemption u/s 11(2) should not be disallowed.” 3.3 The Learned Assessing Officer was of the view that Form 10 filed by the assessee on 30.10.2017 showing accumulation an amount of Rs.33,11,589/- under Section 11(2) of the Act is not eligible

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G (5) (vi) of the Act as per order dated 07.03.2008. It filed its return of income on 23.09.2014 declaring Nil income. 4. The assessee was formed with the following objects:- 1. To promote, support and strengthen education, research and training of Information Technology and its application in all fields of activities and to collaborate, co-operate and enter into

M/S SOCIETY FOR PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN ASIA,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Society For Participatory Research In Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Trust Ward-Iii, Asia, 42,Tughlakabad Instutional Area, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaats1994H (Appellant) (Respondent)

5 We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material on record and orders of the authorities below. Section 2(15) of the Act is amended by the Finance Act, 2009 reads as under: "2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— (15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, Preservation of environment (including watersheds

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS has been deducted, which further shows that the payment received by the assessee are as a contactor only; (e) The prominent gains of the assessee cannot be said to be derived from the eligible business. 12.4 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-11,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS has been deducted, which further shows that the payment received by the assessee are as a contactor only; (e) The prominent gains of the assessee cannot be said to be derived from the eligible business. 12.4 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1) vs. IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS has been deducted, which further shows that the payment received by the assessee are as a contactor only; (e) The prominent gains of the assessee cannot be said to be derived from the eligible business. 12.4 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS has been deducted, which further shows that the payment received by the assessee are as a contactor only; (e) The prominent gains of the assessee cannot be said to be derived from the eligible business. 12.4 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee

IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1),, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

TDS has been deducted, which further shows that the payment received by the assessee are as a contactor only; (e) The prominent gains of the assessee cannot be said to be derived from the eligible business. 12.4 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that issue in dispute is squarely covered in the favour of the assessee

DCM SHRIRAM LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

SOCIETY FOR PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN ASIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

5 general public utility’ i.e., the fourth limb of the definition of ‘charitable purpose’ contained in section 2(15). Hence, such entities will not be eligible for exemption under section 11 or under section 10(23C) of the Act if they carry on commercial activities. Whether such an entity is carrying on an activity in the nature of trade, commerce

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

section 2(22)(e) of I. T. Act - Again this addition has been made in the regular course of assessment proceedings on the ground that there was maximum outstanding balance of Rs.2,26,923/~ in the nature of advance in the account of director of appellant company who is having substantial share holding, not on the basis of any incriminating

AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

section 2(22)(e) of I. T. Act - Again this addition has been made in the regular course of assessment proceedings on the ground that there was maximum outstanding balance of Rs.2,26,923/~ in the nature of advance in the account of director of appellant company who is having substantial share holding, not on the basis of any incriminating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. AMQ AGRO INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha

section 2(22)(e) of I. T. Act - Again this addition has been made in the regular course of assessment proceedings on the ground that there was maximum outstanding balance of Rs.2,26,923/~ in the nature of advance in the account of director of appellant company who is having substantial share holding, not on the basis of any incriminating

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DCM SHRIRAM LTD, NEW DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

DCM SHRIIRAM LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. NEAC, NEW DELHI

80G of\nthe Act. The company has declared book profit u/s 115JB at INR\n2,46,12,21,172/- and paid MAT on book profits. The return of\nincome was revised on 13.07.2016 at an income of INR\n22,56,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny\nand a reference under section 92CA

MICROSOFT INDIA (R&D) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 271 (1 )(c) of the Act. The above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, vary, omit or substitute, withdraw any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee is a private limited

SRF LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

TDS and TCS of Rs. 8,10,608/- (Rs. 7,81,339 + Rs. 29,269) based on the amounts reflected in form 26AS. The rectification applications u/s 154 shall also be duly considered. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 38. Ground Nos. 17 (a) & 17 (b) and Additional Ground No.23 & 24 are connected with each and assail

SRF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

TDS and TCS of Rs. 8,10,608/- (Rs. 7,81,339 + Rs. 29,269) based on the amounts reflected in form 26AS. The rectification applications u/s 154 shall also be duly considered. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 38. Ground Nos. 17 (a) & 17 (b) and Additional Ground No.23 & 24 are connected with each and assail