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

iv) of the first proviso, rejecting such application, after affording it a reasonable opportunity of being heard;] (iii) …….” 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur in the case of the Assessee held that the Activities of the Assessee had commenced in July 2020, hence the assessee was liable to make application for Approval u/s 80G

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

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 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

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

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

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

gains of business or profession\" (before making any\ndeduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account\"\n2.4 That the Income Tax Department has drawn any adverse inference on\nthe said issue in the preceding years but has drawn favourable\ninference in the subsequent years. The details are as under:\nAY\n2015-16\n2\n5\n2016-17\nT\nh\n2017

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

gains of business or profession\" (before making any\ndeduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account\"\n2.4 That the Income Tax Department has drawn any adverse inference on\nthe said issue in the preceding years but has drawn favourable\ninference in the subsequent years. The details are as under:\nAY\nAmount of\nupfront fees,\nprocessing etc\n(Rs.)\nAmount

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

gains of business or profession\" (before making any\ndeduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account\"\n2.4 That the Income Tax Department has drawn any adverse inference on\nthe said issue in the preceding years but has drawn favourable\ninference in the subsequent years. The details are as under:\nAmount of\nAmount of\nAY\nupfront fees,\nprocessing

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , CR BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

gains of business or profession\" (before making any\ndeduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account\"\n2.4 That the Income Tax Department has drawn any adverse inference on\nthe said issue in the preceding years but has drawn favourable\ninference in the subsequent years. The details are as under:\nAY\nAmount of\nupfront fees,\nprocessing etc\n(Rs.)\nAmount

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

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD., KASTURBA NAGAR

gains of business or profession\" (before making any\ndeduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account\"\n2.4 That the Income Tax Department has drawn any adverse inference on\nthe said issue in the preceding years but has drawn favourable\ninference in the subsequent years. The details are as under:\nAY\nAmount of\nupfront fees,\nprocessing etc\n(Rs.)\nAmount

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

gains of business or profession\" (before making any\ndeduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account\"\n2.4 That the Income Tax Department has drawn any adverse inference on\nthe said issue in the preceding years but has drawn favourable\ninference in the subsequent years. The details are as under:\nAmount of\nAmount of\nAY\nprocessing fee\ndisallowed

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.

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 had not shown any agricultural income. b. The compensation

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