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

13, or (b) the trust or institution has not complied with the requirement of any other law, as referred to in item (B) of sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of sub- section (1), and the order, direction or decree, by whatever name called, holding that such non-compliance has occurred, has either not been disputed or has attained finality

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

13. It becomes pertinent to note that sub-section (3) of Section 11 is concerned with the 85% of income which stands accumulated in terms of the facility provided to charitable institutions by Section 11(2). Section 11(3) prescribes that any income referable to Section 11(2) which is either applied for a purpose other than charitable or religious

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

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

13. It becomes pertinent to note that sub-section (3) of Section 11 is concerned with the 85% of income which stands accumulated in terms of the facility provided to charitable institutions by Section 11(2). Section 11(3) prescribes that any income referable to Section 11(2) which is either applied for a purpose other than charitable or religious

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 (SC) [refer para 24 on page 265]. 29. Without prejudice to submissions made above, he alternatively submitted that even assuming there was a violation of section 13 then entire exemption under section 11 and 12 cannot be forfeited and the exemption should have been denied only to this extent of expenditure/ income amount of alleged violation under section 13

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 (SC) [refer para 24 on page 265]. 29. Without prejudice to submissions made above, he alternatively submitted that even assuming there was a violation of section 13 then entire exemption under section 11 and 12 cannot be forfeited and the exemption should have been denied only to this extent of expenditure/ income amount of alleged violation under section 13

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 (SC) [refer para 24 on page 265]. 29. Without prejudice to submissions made above, he alternatively submitted that even assuming there was a violation of section 13 then entire exemption under section 11 and 12 cannot be forfeited and the exemption should have been denied only to this extent of expenditure/ income amount of alleged violation under section 13

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 (SC) [refer para 24 on page 265]. 29. Without prejudice to submissions made above, he alternatively submitted that even assuming there was a violation of section 13 then entire exemption under section 11 and 12 cannot be forfeited and the exemption should have been denied only to this extent of expenditure/ income amount of alleged violation under section 13

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 (SC) [refer para 24 on page 265]. 29. Without prejudice to submissions made above, he alternatively submitted that even assuming there was a violation of section 13 then entire exemption under section 11 and 12 cannot be forfeited and the exemption should have been denied only to this extent of expenditure/ income amount of alleged violation under section 13

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1 to 5, namely, rejection of exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground of violation of provisions under section 13(2)(b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1 to 5, namely, rejection of exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground of violation of provisions under section 13(2)(b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1 to 5, namely, rejection of exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground of violation of provisions under section 13(2)(b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1 to 5, namely, rejection of exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground of violation of provisions under section 13(2)(b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1 to 5, namely, rejection of exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground of violation of provisions under section 13(2)(b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee

ACIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1 to 5, namely, rejection of exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground of violation of provisions under section 13(2)(b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

1 to 5, namely, rejection of exemption under section 11 of the Act on the ground of violation of provisions under section 13(2)(b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee

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

trust and were not advances made without any interest or security so as to attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii)/ 13(3) of the Act. The findings of the Tribunal, summarised in paragraph 19.3 of its order, are as below: - “(a) Assessee is a charitable institution, there is no change in it’s objects. It carried

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

Charitable Society Florence Nighingale Educational Society (5) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (4), where registration of a trust or an institution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub section (1) and subsequently, it is noticed that- (a) the activities of the trust or the institution are being carried out in a manner that

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

Charitable Society Florence Nighingale Educational Society (5) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (4), where registration of a trust or an institution has been granted under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub section (1) and subsequently, it is noticed that- (a) the activities of the trust or the institution are being carried out in a manner that