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

10 of 24 Sections 12-AA and 12-AB and other institutions spoken of in those provisions. 14. The interplay between Section 11(1) and Section 11(2) was succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust8 when it observed thus:- “11. A mere look at Section

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

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

10 of 24 Sections 12-AA and 12-AB and other institutions spoken of in those provisions. 14. The interplay between Section 11(1) and Section 11(2) was succinctly explained by the Supreme Court in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust8 when it observed thus:- “11. A mere look at Section

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution shall be made by him without giving effect to the order passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under clause (ii) or (iii) of the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or clause (ii) or (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

10 also.” 38. Thus, applying the above ratio, the act of collecting the capitation fee if done by the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan cannot be considered to be within the scope of his employment and in such an Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT event, the Assessee trust cannot be held liable for the said

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

10 also.” 38. Thus, applying the above ratio, the act of collecting the capitation fee if done by the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan cannot be considered to be within the scope of his employment and in such an Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT event, the Assessee trust cannot be held liable for the said

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

10 also.” 38. Thus, applying the above ratio, the act of collecting the capitation fee if done by the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan cannot be considered to be within the scope of his employment and in such an Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT event, the Assessee trust cannot be held liable for the said

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

10 also.” 38. Thus, applying the above ratio, the act of collecting the capitation fee if done by the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan cannot be considered to be within the scope of his employment and in such an Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT event, the Assessee trust cannot be held liable for the said

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

10 also.” 38. Thus, applying the above ratio, the act of collecting the capitation fee if done by the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan cannot be considered to be within the scope of his employment and in such an Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT event, the Assessee trust cannot be held liable for the said

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

10 also.” 38. Thus, applying the above ratio, the act of collecting the capitation fee if done by the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan cannot be considered to be within the scope of his employment and in such an Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT event, the Assessee trust cannot be held liable for the said

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

10. 8. So far as the issue, whether income derived by the assessee from an activity of running school can be treated as income from property held under the trust or not, he submitted that section 2(24) defines the scope of ‘income’ which also refers to voluntary contribution received by the charitable

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

trust or institution that the activity shall be carried on no profit no loss basis or that profit shall be proscribed. Even if there is no such express provision, the nature of the charitable purpose, the manner in which the activity for advancing the charitable purpose is being carried on and the surrounding circumstances may clearly indicate that the activity

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

24. It is a fact on record that thereafter the authorities have renewed the approval year-after-year. In fact, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the assessee has placed on record scrutiny assessment orders passed for assessment year 2004-05 to 2013-14, wherein, the Assessing officer has allowed exemption under section 10(23)(iv) of the Act. Therefore, once

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

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

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

10. 8. So far as the issue, whether income derived by the assessee from an activity of running school can be treated as income from property held under the trust or not, he submitted that section 2(24) defines the scope of ‘income’ which also refers to voluntary contribution received by the charitable

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

M/S. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

24-9-1984 explained the amendment under :- "——————advancement of any object beneficial to the public or section of the public distinguished from an individual or group of individuals would be an object of general public utility as (F) Section 13(1) bb was also omitted w.e.f. 1-4-1984 but section 11 (4A) was introduced which stated as under

POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

Trust Vs. CIT (E), ITA No. 4136/Del/2017 (Del. Trib.) 18. Strongly relying upon the observations of the departmental authorities as well as Special Auditor, learned Departmental Representative submitted, various details called for by the Assessing Officer were not furnished in course of assessment proceeding relating to assessment year 2016-07. Drawing our attention to the observations of the Assessing Officer