DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

reassessment order dated 19.12.2017, on the grounds that Accumulation of 15% was to be computed on the basis of gross receipts and not net income. (3) In any case, the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of method adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer, in computing 'accumulation' under section

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

reassessment order dated 19.12.2017, on the grounds that Accumulation of 15% was to be computed on the basis of gross receipts and not net income. (3) In any case, the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the validity of method adopted by the ld. Assessing Officer, in computing 'accumulation' under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA vs. PGP CHARITABLE TRUST, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

Charitable trust were furnished, as such wing gave a finding that trust was receiving its own unaccounted funds in the form of donations. The cases of this group are interconnected and required deep investigation to arrive at a logical conclusion. As such, for taking a logical conclusion in this group of cases, every single seized/impounded document and entry appearing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA vs. PGP CHARITABLE TRUST, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh

Charitable trust were furnished, as such wing gave a finding that trust was receiving its own unaccounted funds in the form of donations. The cases of this group are interconnected and required deep investigation to arrive at a logical conclusion. As such, for taking a logical conclusion in this group of cases, every single seized/impounded document and entry appearing

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable purpose’ even if it incidentally involves the carrying on of commercial activities.” Reliance is placed in the decision of DIT(E) vs Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust TA No.1162 of 2013 (dt: 15.01.2014 (Guj). ii. On the objection of Ld AO that the institution was run by profit motive drawing support from the charge of capitation fee from the students

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. S.S. MOTA SINGH (NILA) CHARITABLE TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito(Exemptions), Vs. S.S. Mota Singh(Nila) Ward-2(1),New Delhi Charitable Trust, C-103, 10Th Floor, Himalaya House, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaats3761J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Praveen Kumar, Sr.Dr Respondent By None Present

reassessment proceedings but allowed the claim of the assessee of depreciation observing as under: “4.8 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the latest case of DIT(Exemption) vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust

SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

trust\nmakes the satisfaction note drawn by the AO incorrect and the\nproceedings initiated therefrom void-ab-initio.\n2.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not\nappreciating the legal position that the assessment of a charitable\ntrust is made under sections 11 to 13, which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

trust\nmakes the satisfaction note drawn by the AO incorrect and the\nproceedings initiated therefrom void-ab-initio.\n2.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nLearned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not\nappreciating the legal position that the assessment of a charitable\ntrust is made under sections 11 to 13, which

GANDHI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY,KARNAL vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 3476/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Gandhi College Of Pharmacy, Vs Acit, Near Iti Chowk, G. T. Road, Circle, Karnal Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5629D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Action Of A.O. In Holding That The Assesses Is Not Eligible For Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Iiiad) Of The Act.

charitable purposes. Accordingly, the AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and rejected the reply by observing as under: “7(ii) As regards para (b) of reply, the provisions of section 10(23C)(iiiad) prohibits exemption to educational institution existing solely for the purpose of profit. In the case of the assessee, out of gross receipt of Rs.8111290

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. SHREE RADHA KRISHAN CHARITABEL TRUST

charitable character. However, when the Assessing Officer (AO) was finalizing the income tax return for the Assessment Year 1997-98, he noticed that shares acquired by the trust amounting to `62.50 lacs were not disposed of within the time and they were hit by the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He, thus, reopened the assessment

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. SHREE RADHA KRISHAN CHARITABEL TRUST

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

charitable character. However, when the Assessing Officer (AO) was finalizing the income tax return for the Assessment Year 1997-98, he noticed that shares acquired by the trust amounting to `62.50 lacs were not disposed of within the time and they were hit by the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He, thus, reopened the assessment

CARE FOUNDATION VILLAGE,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

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

Bench: Nfac, Delhi.

charitable trust. Further, there is no material on record of the CPC or the Department that there was any infringement by the appellant of the above noted excluding provisions of section 13(1)(a) to section 13(1)(d) or section 115 of the Act and therefore, the present appellant is required to be taxed at the rates applicable

DCIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S UMAK EDUCATIONAL TRUST, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

Trust and there is no mention of corpus fund at all. The document at page 22 is a letter written by the assessee to the donor requesting for donation for corpus fund. However, there is no letter or confirmation from the donor that the amount of donation is indeed for corpus fund nor does the receipt mention it. In absence

UMAK EDUCATIONAL TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (E), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

Trust and there is no mention of corpus fund at all. The document at page 22 is a letter written by the assessee to the donor requesting for donation for corpus fund. However, there is no letter or confirmation from the donor that the amount of donation is indeed for corpus fund nor does the receipt mention it. In absence