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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

charitable or\nreligious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous\nyear-\n(i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the\n28th day of February, 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the\nforms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 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

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

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

INDIAN GOLF UNION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E) WARD 2(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed ex parte

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Indian Golf Union Vs. Ito (Exemption) C1/52, 3Rd Floor, Ward 2(3), Hauz Khas Village Road, New Delhi Safdurjang Development Area Pan No. Aaatt3232B (Appellant) (Respondent)

5).The provisions of section 13(l)(d) read as under: 13, (1) Nothing contained in section 11 or section 22 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the precious year of the person in receipt thereof- ….. (d) in the case of a trust for charitable

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Charitable Trust. It was registered as a Public Charitable Trust. It was also registered with the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. The assessee derived income from the temple property which

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Charitable Trust. It was registered as a Public Charitable Trust. It was also registered with the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. The assessee derived income from the temple property which

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Charitable Trust. It was registered as a Public Charitable Trust. It was also registered with the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. The assessee derived income from the temple property which

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Charitable Trust. It was registered as a Public Charitable Trust. It was also registered with the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. The assessee derived income from the temple property which

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Charitable Trust. It was registered as a Public Charitable Trust. It was also registered with the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune. The assessee derived income from the temple property which

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

charitable purposes in India and computed the surplus of the assessee-trust in the following manner: - “Gross Receipts `2,56,84,141/- Less Exemption u/s 11(1) Amount actually applied* `77,94,166/- Application applied u/s 11(2) `33,00,000/- 25% of Income accumulated `64,21,035/- for application. Assets purchased `1,12,011/- ______________ `1,76,27,212/- ______________ Surplus

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

charitable purposes in India and computed the surplus of the assessee-trust in the following manner: - “Gross Receipts `2,56,84,141/- Less Exemption u/s 11(1) Amount actually applied* `77,94,166/- Application applied u/s 11(2) `33,00,000/- 25% of Income accumulated `64,21,035/- for application. Assets purchased `1,12,011/- ______________ `1,76,27,212/- ______________ Surplus