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

vi) an entity making fresh application for approval under clause (23C) of section 10, for registration under section 12AA, for approval under section 80G shall be provisionally approved or registered for three years on the basis of application without detailed enquiry even in the cases where activities of the entity are yet to begin and then it has to apply

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

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

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

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

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)

5 of the appeal. 22. Ground No. 6 of the appeal is with respect to disallowance of Rs. 3 laks incurred on account of donation. The above donation was made by the assessee to the concern in which the directors of the appellate company are trustees. The ld AO disallowed the above expenditure. The ld CIT(A) also upheld

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

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

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

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.

80G 50% of Rs. 2,70,100/- 1,35,050 Less u/s 80L 12,000/- TOTAL (-)1,47,050 Total Taxable Income 1,07,76,611 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A) and submitted that there was no CBI search on the assessee and it was done on his son Sri. Sumit Jain

BUDDHA CATU PARISA FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

vi) as well as order dated 26.09.2017 passed us. 12AA of the Act as under:- “ORDER u/s 80G (5) (vii OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 read with rule- 11AA of the Income Tax - Rates. 1962, 1. The applicant filed application on 09.06.2017 in Form No 10G seeking approval for exemption u/S 80G of the Income

BUDDHA CATU PARISA FOUNDATION,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

vi) as well as order dated 26.09.2017 passed us. 12AA of the Act as under:- “ORDER u/s 80G (5) (vii OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 read with rule- 11AA of the Income Tax - Rates. 1962, 1. The applicant filed application on 09.06.2017 in Form No 10G seeking approval for exemption u/S 80G of the Income

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G (5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order no. DlT(E)/2007-08/N- 845/136 dated 07.03.2008. As per the assessee, it is a society registered on 01st December 2004 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with the main object promote, support and strengthen education, research, and training of Information Technology and its application in all fields of activity

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

80G of the Act. 6. That the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, on the facts and in law, on the circumstances of the case and in law by alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned AO have erred

D.E. SHAW INDIA ADVISORY SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed in terms of our specific observations and

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2010-11 Ay: 2011-12 Ay: 2012-13 D.E. Shaw India Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-20, 1St & 2Nd Floor, Circle 7(1), Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. New Delhi-110016 (Pan: Aabce6097P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kapil Hirani, Ca Shri Suresh Tolani, Adv. Shri Darpan Kirpalani Respondent By : Shri T.M. Shivakumar, Cit ( Dr)

80G of the Act. 6. That the learned AO/ Hon'ble DRP have erred, on the facts and in law, on the circumstances of the case and in law by alleging that the Appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, thereby proposing to initiate penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the learned AO have erred