DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT them named the Assessee trust or any of the trustees. He further stated what no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the Assessee to cross examine those students/parents/guardian despite there being specific request made by the Assessee to the AO during the Assessment proceedings. 18. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that while making the addition

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT them named the Assessee trust or any of the trustees. He further stated what no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the Assessee to cross examine those students/parents/guardian despite there being specific request made by the Assessee to the AO during the Assessment proceedings. 18. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that while making the addition

SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT them named the Assessee trust or any of the trustees. He further stated what no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the Assessee to cross examine those students/parents/guardian despite there being specific request made by the Assessee to the AO during the Assessment proceedings. 18. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that while making the addition

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT them named the Assessee trust or any of the trustees. He further stated what no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the Assessee to cross examine those students/parents/guardian despite there being specific request made by the Assessee to the AO during the Assessment proceedings. 18. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that while making the addition

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT them named the Assessee trust or any of the trustees. He further stated what no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the Assessee to cross examine those students/parents/guardian despite there being specific request made by the Assessee to the AO during the Assessment proceedings. 18. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that while making the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

trusts, D IT can invest proceeds of sale of capital assets in\nacquiring new capital asset and the capital gain shall be deemed to\nhave been applied to charitable

M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

gains for a charitable Trust has been upheld in the case of CIT vs Aurobindo Memorial Fund Society (2001) 247 ITR 93 (Mad) and Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Medical Charitable Trust (2001) 248 ITR 41 (Del.). It is, therefore, clear that reinvestment in capital

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

gains for a charitable Trust has been upheld in the case of CIT vs Aurobindo Memorial Fund Society (2001) 247 ITR 93 (Mad) and Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Medical Charitable Trust (2001) 248 ITR 41 (Del.). It is, therefore, clear that reinvestment in capital

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Trust income and also subsequently, made investment in purchase of land to the extent of Rs.8,71,42,582/-. Hence, the income to the extent of Rs.7.22 crores was treated to have been applied for charitable purposes. It is well settled law that exemption under section 11(1A) for capital gains

THE SOCIETY OF THE SISTERS OF OTHE DISTIITUTE,DELHI vs. ACIT,CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5372/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Society Of The Sisters Of The Vs Acit, Destitute, Jivodaya Hospital, Ashok Cpc, Vihar, New Delhi-110052 Bangalore (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacts9595A Assessee By : Sh. Raman Murali, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2021

trust takes place, if invested in purchase of capital asset in the period earlier to the previous year in which transfer of the capital asset takes place such purchase should also be considered as application of capital gain for charitable

ACIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST,, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2010-11 Acit (Exemption) Vs Divya Yog Mandir Trust Circle, Cgo-1 Kripalu Bag, Hapur Road, Kankhal, Haridwar Ghaziabad (Pan Aaatd1114E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee for charitable purposes. This decision was subsequently been dissented from in several decisions including decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. UOI [2010] 327 ITR 73/188 Taxman 402 (Punj. & Har.) and CIT v. Gaur Brahmin Vidya Pracharini Sabhb [2011] 203 Taxman 226/115 taxmann.com

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Exemptions), Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Kripalu Bagh, Cgo-Ii, Vs Kankhal, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Haridwar. Ghaziabad. (Pan: Aaatd1114E) Appellant Respondent Department By: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rohti Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2019 O R D E R

capital expenditure incurred by the assessee for charitable purposes. This decision was subsequently been dissented from in several decisions including decision of Hon'ble 39 Assessment year 2013-14 Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cases of Pinegrove International Charitable Trust v. UOI [2010] 327 ITR 73/188 Taxman 402 (Punj. & Har.) and CIT v. Gaur Brahmin Vidya Pracharini Sabhb

DCIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPIRITUAL REGENERATION MOVEMENT FOUNDATION OF INDIA,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

charitable trust is utilized for acquiring new capital asset, then the whole of the capital gain is exempt. 10. Accordingly

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

gains, it is difficult to say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

gains, it is difficult to say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries

CIT vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

gains, it is difficult to say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SHANKAR TRADING CO. P. LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

gains, it is difficult to say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries

C.I.T vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

gains, it is difficult to say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO.P.LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

gains, it is difficult to say that either the trustees or beneficiaries of a trust come altogether and form an association for a common purpose or to take a common action. As observed by a Division of this Court in CIT v. Sae Head Office Monthly Paid Employees Welfare Trust (2004) 271 ITR 159, the beneficiaries