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

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of 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

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of 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

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of Section 13

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

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of 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

10. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming imposition of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act.” 4. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Rohit Jain submitted that the assessing officer in his order has alleged that appellant has violated the provision of Section 13

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

10 of 40 name of Charanjiv Educational Society on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that there was a violation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2)(a)/ 13(3), the CIT (Appeals) held that the debit balance arose on account of the desire of the assessee to establish an educational institution (private

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

13 Bhagwant Singh Charitable Trust 2. Whether collection of capitation fees in the name of voluntary contribution and generation of huge surplus would tantamount to commercialization of education by the assessee and, therefore, the assessee – institution was rightly not considered by the Assessing Officer as existing solely for educational purposes within the meaning of Section 2(15) or Section 10

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 ; or (ii) any funds

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

trust, namely the property at 25 Kautilya Marg, New Delhi and 13 Rajdoot Marg, New Delhi for use by the trustees and their family at the consolidated lease rent of Rs. 90,000/- per month attracted the provisions of section 13(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to avail exemption under section

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section 11(1)(a) is to "income" and not to "total income", which has been specifically defined under sections 2(45) of the Act and in view of the aforesaid reasons, the AO erred in invoking the provisions of sections

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

13. Thus, the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, makes it very clear that there is no bar or disharmony between Section 10(23C) and Section 11; and exemption of Section 11 cannot be denied even when there is a specific provision of Section 10(23C). This principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

M/S. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

13(1) bb was also omitted w.e.f. 1-4-1984 but section 11 (4A) was introduced which stated as under 1 "(4A) Sub-section (1) or sub-section 2 or sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A) shall not apply in relation to any income, being profits and gains of business, unless— (a) the business is carried

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