JUST BE FOUNDATION TRUST ,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshram/S Just Be Foundation Commissioner Of Income Trust Flat No. 01, Yamuna Vs Tax (Exemptions), E-2, Apartments, Alaknanda, Civic Centre, New Delhi New Delhi-110019

gains of business incidental to attainment of objects shall be maintained in compliance to section 11(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Page 10 of 21 iv. The trust/institution shall furnish a return of income every year within the time limit prescribed under the act. v. The trust/institution should quote the PAN in all its communications with the Department

VAIDYA MANGAT RAI FOUNDATION,CHANDIGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmavaidya Mangat Rai The Commissioner Of Foundation Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Friends Colony Chandigarh Gali No.2, Hansi Road Bhiwani. Pan-Aadtv 6078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Sapna Bhattia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024

Section 80G(5) of the Act. This will be the harmonious interpretation. 11. If we agree with the interpretation of the ld.CIT(E), then say a trust which was formed in the year 2000, performed charitable activities since 2000, but did not applied for registration u/s.80G, the said trust will never be able to apply for registration now. This

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

gains of such eligible business for the purposes of the deduction under this section, take the amount of profits as may be reasonably deemed to have been derived therefrom: Provided that in case the aforesaid arrangement involves a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, the amount of profits from such transaction shall be determined having regard

GREAT EASTERN EXPORTS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

80G or [section 80GGA or section 80GGC] or section 80HH or section 80HHA or section 80HHB or section 80HHC or section 80HHD or section 80-I or section 80-IA [or section 80-IB] [or section 80-IC] [or section 80-ID or section 80-IE] or section 80J or section 80JJ, no deduction under the same section shall

JAGAT PAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 80G of the Act. The application for rectification has been disposed off vide order u/s 154/143(3) of the Act, on 03.09.2013, after the filing of appeal, and the demand created was reduced to Rs. 36,310/-.The Assessee preferred an Appeal challenging the assessment order dated 22/03/2013 before the CIT(A) which came to be dismissed vide impugned

JAGATPAL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

section 80G of the Act. The application for rectification has been disposed off vide order u/s 154/143(3) of the Act, on 03.09.2013, after the filing of appeal, and the demand created was reduced to Rs. 36,310/-.The Assessee preferred an Appeal challenging the assessment order dated 22/03/2013 before the CIT(A) which came to be dismissed vide impugned

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

TERADATA INDIA P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

ACIT-CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON vs. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

TERADATA INDIA PVT LTD,GRUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimax New York Life Insurance Vs. Dcit, Company Ltd, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi Plot No. 90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a joint venture between Max India Ltd and New York Life insurance International Holding Ltd. The assessee filed the return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring income of Rs. 4741955000/-. The assessment was made on 29.12.2016 determining the total income of Rs. 9536768000/-. The income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

gains of business” would continue to be entitled to the benefit of Section 10(23C)(via) of the IT Act, subject only to the condition that the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the “hospital or other institution”, and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect thereto. This, however, is not the position obtaining

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SURESH JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 369/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Ita No. 370/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 374/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Acit Vs Suresh Jain Circle-38(1), C-29, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpj6507G Assessee By : Sh. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Sumit Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 29.11.2001 Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Xxviii, New Delhi For The Assessment Year 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2006-2007. Since The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 10(37), the capital gain arisen from the acquisition of the land amounting to Rs.58,17,070/- is brought to tax. Accordingly an addition of Rs.58,17,070/- is made to the returned income. 3. Since the assessee has not produced the vouchers in respect of expenses claimed, wrongly claimed loss from the firm M/s Ridge Court Bowling Centre

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

5)(vi) and as per the provision or section 80G(5B) read with explanation 3 to section 80G, an institution existing wholly or substantially for religious purpose is not allowed to get the benefit of sec. 80G. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.18,36,05,498/- u/s 115BBC

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SWAMI SUKHDEVANAND TRUST, DEHRADUN

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

capital gain. 2. The assessee has also filed Cross Objection No. 232/Del/2017, which is merely supporting the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case shows that assessee is a trust registered under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) since 14.05.1974 and also holding recognition under Section 80G(5

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

gains of business and profession' and not the profit as computed by the Appellant. 16. The Ld. AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in not allowing set-off of business loss of Rs. 5,04,30,717 pertaining to units other than those claiming deduction under section 1OA of the Act despite

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

gains of business and profession' and not the profit as computed by the Appellant. 16. The Ld. AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case in not allowing set-off of business loss of Rs. 5,04,30,717 pertaining to units other than those claiming deduction under section 1OA of the Act despite

SH. ROOP KISHORE MADAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 2789/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12

80G 2,350.00 1,02,350.00 Net Taxable Income 14,59,19,382.00 11. We find that the assessee has filed the computation of income correctly. The computation filed is as per the scheme of computation provided in the Income Tax Act. The provisions of Section 74 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly provides for set off of short