ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

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

gains of\nbusiness which is not incidental to the attainment of its objectives or\nseparate books of account are not maintained by such trust or\ninstitution in respect of the business which is incidental to the\nattainment of its objectives; or\n\n(c) The trust or institution has applied any part of its income from\nthe property held under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

capital was directly aligned with its objectives and was made in compliance with the directions of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting [hereafter „MIB‟] and the recommendations of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [hereafter „TRAI‟]. It was submitted that the funds were deployed solely to fulfill its objectives and not for earning any income, interest, or profit, and thus

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

capital expenditure incurred during the year as application of income towards charitable purposes while computing income under section 11 of the Act. Ground no.21 is accordingly allowed.” (emphasis supplied) ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 23 26. Accordingly, he submitted that in the earlier assessment year, i.e., 2006-07, there has been over application of income and in this

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

d) Schrader Duncan Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Spl. Rg. 10(300, 18 Taxmann.com287(Mumbai Tribunal)- As per provisions of section 10(33), source viz., transfer of capital asset being units of US 64 Scheme itself has been excluded and not capital gain arising on said transfer alone; as held by the ITAT in the above quoted decision

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. DR. PRANNOY ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

d in Stock 48,35,850 2,07,95,93,242 430 48,35.850 open offer Exchange 22/01/08 Transferred Stock 9,51,000 3,113 0 57,86,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/ 08 Transferred Stock 1,50,000 491 0 59,36,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/08 Transferred Stock 1

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. RADHIKA ROY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

d in Stock 48,35,850 2,07,95,93,242 430 48,35.850 open offer Exchange 22/01/08 Transferred Stock 9,51,000 3,113 0 57,86,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/ 08 Transferred Stock 1,50,000 491 0 59,36,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/08 Transferred Stock 1

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

d in Stock 48,35,850 2,07,95,93,242 430 48,35.850 open offer Exchange 22/01/08 Transferred Stock 9,51,000 3,113 0 57,86,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/ 08 Transferred Stock 1,50,000 491 0 59,36,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/08 Transferred Stock 1

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

d in Stock 48,35,850 2,07,95,93,242 430 48,35.850 open offer Exchange 22/01/08 Transferred Stock 9,51,000 3,113 0 57,86,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/ 08 Transferred Stock 1,50,000 491 0 59,36,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/08 Transferred Stock 1

SMT. RADHIKA ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

d in Stock 48,35,850 2,07,95,93,242 430 48,35.850 open offer Exchange 22/01/08 Transferred Stock 9,51,000 3,113 0 57,86,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/ 08 Transferred Stock 1,50,000 491 0 59,36,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/08 Transferred Stock 1

DR. PRANNOY ROY,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

d in Stock 48,35,850 2,07,95,93,242 430 48,35.850 open offer Exchange 22/01/08 Transferred Stock 9,51,000 3,113 0 57,86,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/ 08 Transferred Stock 1,50,000 491 0 59,36,850 from Exchange individual account 17/03/08 Transferred Stock 1

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

D. Trivedi (HUF) (2017) 87 taxmann.com 137 which was precisely on this issue that if the intention of the assessee at the time of purchase is of investor and held as investment then any action arising out of transfer of shares should be treated as capital gains. This judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has now been affirmed

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

d) since no question has been raised before us by the revenue on this point. 17. The Tribunal’s finding in the assessee’s appeal with respect to the addition made under Section 68 is that the assessee has successfully demonstrated the identity of the donors, the source of the payment, the PAN numbers, original confirmation