ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

charitable-trust would qualify as income for computing statutorily allowed accumulation of 15% in terms of section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. In view of the above the addition made by the AO is confirmed and the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 13. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

c) or section 11(1)(a) or section 13(1) of the Act. It is held in islamic Academy of Education (supra) that the amended Section 12AB (4) of the Act does not consider a violation of Section 13(1) of the Act (para 8.1.9 @pg 44-45 of the judgement compilation). Further, reliance placed to Section 12AB

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

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

trust applies its income for the purposes for which it was accumulated, it cannot be said that there is a violation of section 11(3)(c) of the Act. The emphasis given under the provisions of sections 11(1) and 11(2) is ―application of income‖ for charitable

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

trust applies its income for the purposes for which it was accumulated, it cannot be said that there is a violation of section 11(3)(c) of the Act. The emphasis given under the provisions of sections 11(1) and 11(2) is ―application of income‖ for charitable

BHAGWANT SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

trust created before the aforesaid date to seek such an order from CBDT in respect of its income which is applied to charitable or religious purposes outside India. Therefore, the words 'in India' appearing in section 11(1)(a) and the words 'outside India' appearing in section 11(1)(c

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

11(1)(a) is that, income should be derived from the property held under the trust wholly for charitable or religious purpose. Assessee being a society and is not a Trust, hence it is not entitled for benefit u/s.11. According to him, since sources of income are students, therefore, students cannot be reckoned as ‘property held under the trust

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

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc disallowance on car and fuel expenses. As stated above, the assessee is a Trust incorporated with the pre-dominant object of imparting education since imparting of education is a charitable

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

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc disallowance on car and fuel expenses. As stated above, the assessee is a Trust incorporated with the pre-dominant object of imparting education since imparting of education is a charitable

ITO (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

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc disallowance on car and fuel expenses. As stated above, the assessee is a Trust incorporated with the pre-dominant object of imparting education since imparting of education is a charitable

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

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc disallowance on car and fuel expenses. As stated above, the assessee is a Trust incorporated with the pre-dominant object of imparting education since imparting of education is a charitable

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

1)(C) read with section 13(3); thirdly, computation of income consequent to denial of exemption under section 11/ 12 of the Act; fourthly, ad hoc disallowance on car and fuel expenses. As stated above, the assessee is a Trust incorporated with the pre-dominant object of imparting education since imparting of education is a charitable

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

c) was clear and lucid but conspicuously different from section 11(1) of the Act. It has been observed in Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (supra) : 11. Clause a of Section 11(1) stipulates that income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

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

The appeal is disposed of

11 of the Act in order to claim any benefit under the provisions of that Section. 30. The reliance placed by the Assessee on the decision of the Supreme Court in Surat City Gymkhana (supra) is also misplaced. In that case, the Assessee had asserted that its objects were exclusively charitable and had claimed exemption under Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3) of the Act. It is necessary to briefly notice the statutory provisions in this regard. Section 11 exempts any income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

C. Lall Choudhary Vs. Commissioner 0/Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa (1957) 31 ITR 226, the Patha High Court ruled that Section 4(3)(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act, confers an exemption from tax only IrA 309/2003,417/2003,18/2004,722/2007,770/2011,1050/201 1 and 1051/2011 Page

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

C. Lall Choudhary Vs. Commissioner 0/Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa (1957) 31 ITR 226, the Patha High Court ruled that Section 4(3)(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act, confers an exemption from tax only IrA 309/2003,417/2003,18/2004,722/2007,770/2011,1050/201 1 and 1051/2011 Page

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

C. Lall Choudhary Vs. Commissioner 0/Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa (1957) 31 ITR 226, the Patha High Court ruled that Section 4(3)(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act, confers an exemption from tax only IrA 309/2003,417/2003,18/2004,722/2007,770/2011,1050/201 1 and 1051/2011 Page

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

C. Lall Choudhary Vs. Commissioner 0/Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa (1957) 31 ITR 226, the Patha High Court ruled that Section 4(3)(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which corresponds to Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act, confers an exemption from tax only IrA 309/2003,417/2003,18/2004,722/2007,770/2011,1050/201 1 and 1051/2011 Page