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

102/-. 13. The crux of the finding of the CIT (A) is that since assessee is carrying out educational activities, therefore, there is a separate provision under the Act i.e. 10(23C) and assessee cannot claim benefit of sections 11 & 12 and 6 ITA No.4727/Del./2017 finally all the receipts and donations are taxable as income from other sources without

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Charitable Trust, Circle-2, Meerut Railway Road, Meerut PAN: AABTS7321M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, Adv Revenue by: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 02/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 23/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. ITA No. 4622/Del/2012 is filed by the revenue against the order of ld CIT(A), Meerut

DEVKI DEVI FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DIT (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: -- Devki Devi Foundation, Vs Dit (Exemptions), Plot No.15, 3Rd Floor, 2, Press Enclave Road, Saket, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatd5283G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2011 Of The Dit (Exemptions), Delhi Withdrawing Registration Granted Earlier U/S 12A Of The It Act Since Inception.

charitable nature under the Ac is concerned, since provision of free treatment is not a criteria to be eligible for claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act, discussed in detail in the Synopsis. Emphatic reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Civil Services Society

RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

trust and import his own imaginary and arbitrary ideas relating' to term "property" to disallow benefit of Section 11 when all relevant conditions of Section 11 are satisfied and there is no violation of any legal provisions. 12. Whether Ld CIT(A) is justified in law to hold that when provisions Section 10(23C)(iv) & (v) provide for exemption

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

102. For imparting education as charitable activity, quality or not, it cannot be the case of anyone that such education or quality education cannot be imparted as charitable activity unless the cost of imparting of education is borne by the recipients of education. Theoretically & mathematically, it is perfectly possible to impart the education in the domain of charitable activity without

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

102. For imparting education as charitable activity, quality or not, it cannot be the case of anyone that such education or quality education cannot be imparted as charitable activity unless the cost of imparting of education is borne by the recipients of education. Theoretically & mathematically, it is perfectly possible to impart the education in the domain of charitable activity without

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

102. For imparting education as charitable activity, quality or not, it cannot be the case of anyone that such education or quality education cannot be imparted as charitable activity unless the cost of imparting of education is borne by the recipients of education. Theoretically & mathematically, it is perfectly possible to impart the education in the domain of charitable activity without

SAT KABIR SIDHANT PARCHAR TRUST,SONEPAT vs. CIT(EXEM), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4788/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : Ita No. 4789/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : Sat Kabir Sidhant Parchar Vs Cit(Exemptions) Trust, Vpo Kheri Dhamkan, Chandigarh Gohana, Sonepat, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqts7275P Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Aashna Paul, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2021

102 taxmann.com 34 (SC)  Corbett Educational Society Vs. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi-Trib.)  Suchinta Educational Society Vs. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 178 (Chandigarh-Trib.)  Hardayal Charitable and Educational Trust Vs. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 288 (Agra)  Ganeshi Lal Educational Society Vs. CIT [2013] 40 taxmann.com 257 (Punjab and Haryana) 7. On perusal, we find that the decisions

SAT KABIR SIDHANT PARCHAR TRUST,SONEPAT vs. CIT(EXEM), CHANDIGARH

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4788/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : Ita No. 4789/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : Sat Kabir Sidhant Parchar Vs Cit(Exemptions) Trust, Vpo Kheri Dhamkan, Chandigarh Gohana, Sonepat, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqts7275P Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Aashna Paul, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2021

102 taxmann.com 34 (SC)  Corbett Educational Society Vs. CIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi-Trib.)  Suchinta Educational Society Vs. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 178 (Chandigarh-Trib.)  Hardayal Charitable and Educational Trust Vs. CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 288 (Agra)  Ganeshi Lal Educational Society Vs. CIT [2013] 40 taxmann.com 257 (Punjab and Haryana) 7. On perusal, we find that the decisions

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

Charitable Trust (1976) 102 ITR 474.” 31. The authorities in the form of case law referred to above also reiterate that a mere incurrence of (surplus) profit does not automatically presuppose a business activity that invalidates the exemption under section

DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ADA), ALIGARH

The appeal of the department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

trust deed of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided under Section 11 for the relevant assessment year. 32. From the record, it also appears that the "authority" had been maintaining infrastructure

SUNIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraadvantage India Vs. The Pr. C.I.T 101-102, Oriental House Central - 2 Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi New Delhi

charitable activities. Thus the assessee’s contention that the PCIT(C) has invoked section 12AA(3) of the Act only on the basis of AO’s finding that the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) is violated, is not justified. We find that the PCIT(C) has arrived at his decision to withdraw the registration after finding that

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT E (CIRCLE), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

trust deed of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided under Section 11 for the relevant assessment year. 32. From the record, it also appears that the "authority" had been maintaining infrastructure

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

trust deed of the assessee. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the proviso to Section 2(15) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the assessee was entitled to exemption provided under Section 11 for the relevant assessment year. 32. From the record, it also appears that the "authority" had been maintaining infrastructure

M/S. SHANKAR TRADING CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Charitable Prajnalaya Trust and pointed out that in Assessment Year 1989- 90 the gross profit rate on sale of kattha by the Trust was 21%; for the Assessment Year 1990-91 it was 13.81%; for the Assessment Year 1991-92 it was 14.8%; and for the Assessment Year 1992-93 it was 20.04% which averages to 17.4%. Such an assessment

AMIT RASTOGI HUF,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), MEERUT

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Charitable Prajnalaya Trust and pointed out that in Assessment Year 1989- 90 the gross profit rate on sale of kattha by the Trust was 21%; for the Assessment Year 1990-91 it was 13.81%; for the Assessment Year 1991-92 it was 14.8%; and for the Assessment Year 1992-93 it was 20.04% which averages to 17.4%. Such an assessment

M/S. SHANKAR TRADING CO. (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Charitable Prajnalaya Trust and pointed out that in Assessment Year 1989- 90 the gross profit rate on sale of kattha by the Trust was 21%; for the Assessment Year 1990-91 it was 13.81%; for the Assessment Year 1991-92 it was 14.8%; and for the Assessment Year 1992-93 it was 20.04% which averages to 17.4%. Such an assessment

M/S. SHANKAR TRADING CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Charitable Prajnalaya Trust and pointed out that in Assessment Year 1989- 90 the gross profit rate on sale of kattha by the Trust was 21%; for the Assessment Year 1990-91 it was 13.81%; for the Assessment Year 1991-92 it was 14.8%; and for the Assessment Year 1992-93 it was 20.04% which averages to 17.4%. Such an assessment