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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

trust registered with the stated object of\nimparting education is, in reality, carrying on activities primarily in the\nnature of relief to the poor or other charitable purposes unrelated to\neducation, the registration may be liable to be withdrawn. In the instant\ncase before us, the activities carried out by the Assessee Society of\nimparting education is not even doubted

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

38,400 1,000 3,600 17 61,200 700 77,000 12 77 6,46,800 1,000 3,600 15 54,000 79,000 8 700 12 79 6,63,600 1,000 3,600 19 68,400 60,000 9 900 12 60 6,48,000 1,000 3,600 17 61,200 57,000 10

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

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

10(38), Section 71 and Section 74 are examined. Section 2(14) : “As per S. 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “income” includes- (i) profits and gains; (ii) dividend; (iia) voluntary contributions received by a trust created wholly or partly for charitable

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

10(38), Section 71 and Section 74 are examined. Section 2(14) : “As per S. 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “income” includes- (i) profits and gains; (ii) dividend; (iia) voluntary contributions received by a trust created wholly or partly for charitable

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

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

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

38,400 61,200 76,000 1000 3,600 15 7 700 12 77 6,46,800 54,000 77,000 1000 3,600 19 8 700 12 79 6,63,600 68,400 79,000 1000 3,600 17 9 900 12 60 6,48,000 61,200 60,000 1000 3,600 18 10

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

Trust (for Rs. 38,35,00,000 construction of Patanjali Yogpeeth-II) (b) Donations in relation to Disaster Relief Fund Rs. 4,36,23,766 (b) Donations in University of Patanjali Rs. 61,000 Total Rs. 42,71,84,766 10. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in holding that the voluntary contribution

M/S GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

10. Further, from the relevant part of first appellate order we note that the ld CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee and confirmation remaining part of addition amounting to Rs. M/s. Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust 11,60,77,000/- with following observations and findings in para 5.7 of first appellate order which as follows

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

section 11 and 12 of the Act. However, since I have already held that the appellant trust is eligible for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv), which is the main plea, therefore, grounds/plea raised by the appellant regarding this issue also become academic in nature. 10. After holding that the appellant is a charitable institution, eligible for exemption u/s 10

DCIT (EXEMPTION), UTTAR PRADESH vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

38 lacs patients through Patanjali Chikitsalaya spread all across the country. It was submitted that all records of such treatments and activities of the trust has been examined in scrutiny assessment by revenue department over so many years and have never been disputed. 10 ITA No.5612/Del./2015 6.6.1. The trust deed in clause J and N has provided the objective