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

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

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

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

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

charitable trusts would amount to utilization of the funds for a purpose other than those for which the surplus was accumulated under Section 11(2) and thus being violative of Section 11(3)(c) and Section 11(3)(d) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

charitable trusts would amount to utilization of the funds for a purpose other than those for which the surplus was accumulated under Section 11(2) and thus being violative of Section 11(3)(c) and Section 11(3)(d) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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

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

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

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

ASSOCIATION OF STATE ROAD TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

Accordingly the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

46) of section 10 if they are holding registration under section 12A/12AA. The anomaly pointed out above, needs to be addressed. However, as the provisions relating to charitable entities constitute a complete code and that once any trust

FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3, DELHI

In the result, the assessees‟ appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshlala Sher Singh Memorial Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, Jhandewalan, New Plot No. 18, Sector-22, Phase-1, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaal2241H Jindal Charitable Society, Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Ps-2, C-3, Block, Phase-Ii, Jhandewalan, New Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0588L Florence Nighingale Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Educational Society, Jhandewalan, New Sector-16B, Phase-I, Haf Delhi Pocket-A, Sector-22, Delhi- 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaf1097R

Trust Society Jindal Charitable Society Florence Nighingale Educational Society (23AAA), (23B), (23C), (23F), (23FA), (24), (46) and (47) of Section 10

LALA SHER SINGH MEMORIAL JEEVAN VIGYAN TRUST SOCIETY,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)-3, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the assessees‟ appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshlala Sher Singh Memorial Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, Jhandewalan, New Plot No. 18, Sector-22, Phase-1, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaal2241H Jindal Charitable Society, Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Ps-2, C-3, Block, Phase-Ii, Jhandewalan, New Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0588L Florence Nighingale Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Educational Society, Jhandewalan, New Sector-16B, Phase-I, Haf Delhi Pocket-A, Sector-22, Delhi- 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaf1097R

Trust Society Jindal Charitable Society Florence Nighingale Educational Society (23AAA), (23B), (23C), (23F), (23FA), (24), (46) and (47) of Section 10

JINDAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,DELHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3, DELHI

In the result, the assessees‟ appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshlala Sher Singh Memorial Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, Jhandewalan, New Plot No. 18, Sector-22, Phase-1, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaal2241H Jindal Charitable Society, Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Ps-2, C-3, Block, Phase-Ii, Jhandewalan, New Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0588L Florence Nighingale Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Educational Society, Jhandewalan, New Sector-16B, Phase-I, Haf Delhi Pocket-A, Sector-22, Delhi- 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaf1097R

Trust Society Jindal Charitable Society Florence Nighingale Educational Society (23AAA), (23B), (23C), (23F), (23FA), (24), (46) and (47) of Section 10

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

10(23C)(iv) and that the objects of the Trust being charitable within the meaning of section 2(15) the benefit of section 11 and 12 is allowed. There is no change either in facts or in law in AY 2016-17 from those in preceding years as evidenced from the orders of assessment

MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

The appeal is disposed of

trust bonafide and in a manner, which according to them best subserved the charitable objects and the intent of the Settlor. Thus the activities of the Assessee cannot be held to be ultra vires its objects. The AO and the Tribunal were unduly influenced by the proportion of the receipts pertaining to the Ayurvedic Research Institute and the hospital

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

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Exemptions), Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Kripalu Bagh, Cgo-Ii, Vs Kankhal, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Haridwar. Ghaziabad. (Pan: Aaatd1114E) Appellant Respondent Department By: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rohti Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2019 O R D E R

10(23C) of the Act on the facts of the case before the Hon'ble High Court. In this case profits of the assessee was considered without taking into consideration the capital expenditure incurred by the assessee for charitable purposes. This decision was subsequently been dissented from in several decisions including decision of Hon'ble 39 Assessment year