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

iii. Separate accounts in respect of profits and 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

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

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

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

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

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 III-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 27,03,104/- claimed under section

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 III-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 27,03,104/- claimed under section

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 III-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 27,03,104/- claimed under section

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.

iii) and does not fulfill conditions No. (ii) and (iv) as discussed below:- a. The assessee has not carried out any agricultural operations and shown agricultural income in order to prove that the land was used for agricultural purposes. A perusal of return of ITA Nos. 369, 370 & 374/Del/2012 8 Suresh Jain income for Asstt. Year shows that assessee

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

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

80G(5) from 28.07.2012. It is engaged in the activities of spiritual and cultural heritage of India based on the principles of equality and spirituality. It filed its return of income on 27.09.2014 at Rs. ‘NIL’. The case was selected for the scrutiny. 4. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that assessee trust has sold an immovable property

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 (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:

5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 effective from 01.04.2003. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Amway Enterprises Vs DCIT (2008) 111 ITD 112 " ACIT Vs Globe Capital Market Ltd. in ITA No. 2926/Del/2012 25. The ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the rate of depreciation of computer including computer software

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:

5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 effective from 01.04.2003. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Amway Enterprises Vs DCIT (2008) 111 ITD 112 " ACIT Vs Globe Capital Market Ltd. in ITA No. 2926/Del/2012 25. The ld. DRP after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the rate of depreciation of computer including computer software

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

iii) Income from House Property 2,69,500.00 iv) Income from other sources 4,44,436.56 Gross Taxable Income 14,60,21,732.00 Less: Deduction u/s 80CCC 1,00,000.00 : Deduction u/s 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

MUKUT BEHARI LAL BHARGAVA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE(2)1, GURGAON

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalmukut Behari Lal Bhargava, Acit, Lcg 05, 04B Laburnum Complex, Circle-2(1), 1 4Th Floor, Sushant Lok 1, Vs. Gurgaon. Block-A, Sector-28 Haryana-122009. Pan-Adipb9356P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A) In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Gurugaon-1/10738/2018-19 Dated 05.02.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,20,41,040/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Has Issued Various Notices Which Were Replied By The Assessee. Mukut Behari Lal Bhargava Vs. Acit 3. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed At A Total Income Of Rs.1,79,36,182/- By Making Disallowance On Account Of Expenses Claimed On Costs Of Improvement Of Capital Asset, Disallowance Of Carry Forward Of Short Term Capital Gains & Long Term Capital Loss & Also Denied The Deduction Claimed U/S 80G Of The Act.

III During the year under review, a sum of Rs.2,36,35,657.00/- was given as a donation to the Letz Dream Foundation and Rs. 20,00,000/- to the Parivaar Education Society. The deductions were claimed u/s 80G and u/s 80GGA, respectively. Ground No. IV That the Ld. ACIT grossly erred in initiating penalty proceedings