COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

23-C) of Section 10 or other trust or institution registered under Section 12-AA[or Section 12-AB, as the case may be], being contribution with a specific direction that it shall form part of the corpus], shall not be treated as application of income for charitable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

23-C) of Section 10 or other trust or institution registered under Section 12-AA[or Section 12-AB, as the case may be], being contribution with a specific direction that it shall form part of the corpus], shall not be treated as application of income for charitable

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

10 or which is not excluded from the\ntotal income under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 13; or\n(e) any income which is not excluded from the total income under clause\n(c) of sub-section (1) of section 11.\n(Emphasis supplied by us)\n9. The Learned AR before us submitted that Clause

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ANIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

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

10(23C) which, it is well settled, is a provision closely interlinked to Section 80-G. Where the two expressions "charitable purpose" and "not for purposes of profit" are used in the same statute, in cognate provisions, even if situated at some distance from each other, they cannot be accorded the same meaning, without due justification. In the present case

SUNSHINE EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

23)(C) only and not under the provisions of sections 11 & 12 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred, on facts & in law, in holding that income of the appellant society by way of fees & other charges from the students cannot be said to be income from property held under trust and therefore not eligible for exemption

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPT vs. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY

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

c) Whether orders passed by ITAT are perverse in law when it held that the provisions of Section 11 (4A) were not attracted when the Assessee itself had made claim under section 11 of the Act and that the provision similar to Section 11 (4A) are also incorporated in the 7th proviso to Section 10

INDIAN INTERNATIONAL CENTRE,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 India International Centre, Vs. Cit (E), 40, Max Muller Marg, Room No.2620, Lodhi Estate, Civic Centre, New Delhi. Jl Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaati0660C

23-8-2011, the AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) and had required the assessee as under: “2. Note on the activities of the trust in AY 2009-10, Explanation along with documentary proof to justify that these activities were charitable as per Section 11,12,13 read with Section 2(15) in light of the recent amendment. Show

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted

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

c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

c), as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted

JCIT(OSD)(E) CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI vs. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

trust, society, or other association of persons established for charitable purposes. However, such exemption is subject to certain conditions and requirements, and the Commissioner of Income tax (Exemptions) has the power to grant or revoke the approval of such exemption. In the present case, the assessment order was made based on the order of the Commissioner of income tax (exemptions

GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6054/Del./2018 : Asstt. Year : Gian Sagar Educational & Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Charitable Trust, Flat No. 509, Tax, Central Circle-27, 5Th Floor, Indraprakash Building, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5827B Assessee By : Sh. Amol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2020

10 Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust cancellation of the registration of the assessee trust by the Pr. CIT is wholly unsustainable in law. It was submitted that u/s 12AA(3) of the Act, registration can be cancelled only when the Principal Commissioner is satisfied that activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

Trust has not given any evidence to show that poor/ EWS category of students were given education. In this regard, he submitted that ‘education’ per se is treated as charitable under section 2(15) and there is no law that the education was must imparted to the poor only what is required is education should be given to a section

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

Trust has not given any evidence to show that poor/ EWS category of students were given education. In this regard, he submitted that ‘education’ per se is treated as charitable under section 2(15) and there is no law that the education was must imparted to the poor only what is required is education should be given to a section

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

Trust has not given any evidence to show that poor/ EWS category of students were given education. In this regard, he submitted that ‘education’ per se is treated as charitable under section 2(15) and there is no law that the education was must imparted to the poor only what is required is education should be given to a section