M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

Trusts as per Section 11(5) and cannot be faulted on this ground. 3.2. As for invoking the provisions of section 11(1B), it was submitted that since the assessee-society has not exercised the option under clause 2 of the Explanation to sub section (1) of section 11, the question of invoking Section 11(IB) does not arise

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

Trusts as per Section 11(5) and cannot be faulted on this ground. 3.2. As for invoking the provisions of section 11(1B), it was submitted that since the assessee-society has not exercised the option under clause 2 of the Explanation to sub section (1) of section 11, the question of invoking Section 11(IB) does not arise

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Charitable Trust various programs for the benefit of poor section of the society. It is a fact that section 11(5

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

5. Ld. CIT (A) also discussed the provisions of Section 10(23C)(iv) & (v) and observed that, once the income of Educational institution are exempted u/s.10(23C), then legislature does not intend to give same benefit in Sections 11 & 12 again. According to him there is no conflict and 11 ITA No.4727/Del./2017 overlapping between the provision contained in Sections

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

charitable trust constituted an „investment‟ under Section 11(5) of the Act and thereby violating Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The assessee

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year- (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11

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

The appeal is disposed of

5):” 25. The expression “such purposes”, obviously, has the same meaning as used in Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Section 11(2) of the Act has to be read in conjunction with Section 11(1) of the Act. While Section 11(1)(a) of the Act provides for exemption for income applied during the relevant previous year, Section

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

5. Ld. CIT (A) also discussed the provisions of Section 10(23C)(iv) & (v) and observed that, once the income of Educational institution are exempted u/s.10(23C), then legislature does not intend to give same benefit in Sections 11 & 12 again. According to him there is no conflict and overlapping between the provision contained in Sections 11

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

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

5 of 20 Manufacturers, (1980) 121 ITR 1. It was further urged that the amendment to sub- section (4A) of Section 11 w. e. f. assessment year 1992-93 made the provisions more liberal and that having regard to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Thanthi Trust (supra) the assessee should be granted exemption under Section 11

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S BAGRI FOUNDATION

trust. The question which arises is whether such prohibition/embargo is only on the accumulations in excess of 15% with which Section 11(2) deals or extends even to accumulation to the extent of 15% under Section 11(1)(a). 2010:DHC:3202-DB 10. Ordinarily, the “explanation” having been appended to Section 11(2), is intended to explain 11

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

11 corresponds to section 4(3)(i) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. [Para 14] 5 Bhagwant Singh Charitable Trust

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 or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year- (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983, otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11

PRABHU SARAN GARG CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 3558/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year 2010-11 Prabhu Saran Garg Charitable Vs. Jcit, Trust, C/O M/S O.P. Sapra & Range-2, Associates, C-763, New Friends Ghaziabad Colony, New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp9634M Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Girish Kumar Kohali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2022

Charitable Trust (3) Any debentures issued by, or on behalf of, any company or corporation acquired by the trust or institution before the 1st day of March, 1983; (4) Any asset, not being an investment or deposit in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 11 & 12 of the Act since then. The charitable status of the trust was accepted by the Department in preceding years also and, therefore, under identical circumstances, the benefit of exemption u/s 11& 12 of the Act should not be denied. Ld. AR also filed detailed written submissions in this regard which reads as under: “1. Respondent assessee

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)

11 stipulate the methodology for computing the income applied to charitable and religious purposes and the 15% that may be accumulated or set apart. The section also envisages the inclusion of a business undertaking in the property held under trust and the determination of income therefrom. Sub Section 5

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

Charitable Prajanalay Trust. It was created by a trust deed drawn up on 08.09.1971 by B. D. Mehta, partner of the firm M/s. Bishan Das Girdharilal and Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o. B. D. Mehta, partner of M/s. Raj Kumar& Sons Co. These are the two founder - trustees. They settled an amount of 2,200/- upon trust. Admittedly, this

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

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

Charitable Prajanalay Trust. It was created by a trust deed drawn up on 08.09.1971 by B. D. Mehta, partner of the firm M/s. Bishan Das Girdharilal and Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o. B. D. Mehta, partner of M/s. Raj Kumar& Sons Co. These are the two founder - trustees. They settled an amount of 2,200/- upon trust. Admittedly, this

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

Charitable Prajanalay Trust. It was created by a trust deed drawn up on 08.09.1971 by B. D. Mehta, partner of the firm M/s. Bishan Das Girdharilal and Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o. B. D. Mehta, partner of M/s. Raj Kumar& Sons Co. These are the two founder - trustees. They settled an amount of 2,200/- upon trust. Admittedly, this