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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

M/S. FIBERFILL ENGINEERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust Commissioner of Income Tax. 207 ITR 368. d. CIT Vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Ltd. 77 ITR 518 (SC), , wherein it was, inter alia, held that section 22(3), equivalent to section 139(4

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

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

4. Mr. Moitra, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has failed to show any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In fact, he has prayed merely for remand of the case as was done by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Hyderabad Secunderabad Foodgrains Association Ltd.[1989] 175 ITR 574. The facts in that

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

4. Mr. Moitra, appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has failed to show any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. In fact, he has prayed merely for remand of the case as was done by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Hyderabad Secunderabad Foodgrains Association Ltd.[1989] 175 ITR 574. The facts in that

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

4(3)(i): “(d) The exemption is restricted to such portion of the income as is in fact applied, or accumulated or set apart for application, to religious or charitable 2012:DHC:3211-DB ITA 17/2011 etc. Page 25 of 38 purposes within the taxable territories. The territorial limit of application of income –viz. the taxable territories – is as essential

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

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

4(3)(i): “(d) The exemption is restricted to such portion of the income as is in fact applied, or accumulated or set apart for application, to religious or charitable 2012:DHC:3211-DB ITA 17/2011 etc. Page 25 of 38 purposes within the taxable territories. The territorial limit of application of income –viz. the taxable territories – is as essential

DCIT (EXEMPTION), UTTAR PRADESH vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

4 ITA No.5612/Del./2015 donation of Rs.68.78 crores out of the total income of Rs.144.88 7. This issue has been decided by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 in favour of the assessee (supra) by returning following findings :- “4.21. In support of ground No.7 regarding inter-trusts donations, the Ld.A.R. submitted

EFFORT FOUDATION (N.G.O),DELHI vs. ITO , DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1204/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.), Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 233, Pocket-10, Nasirpura, Exemption Ward-1(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae4486D Assessee By: An Adjournment Application Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

section 139(4A) of the Act and the same is reproduced below: 4 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.) "S.139(4A) Every person in receipt of income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable

UTTARANCHAL RURAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshuttaranchal Rural Development Vs. Ito, Agency, Exemption Circle, Panchayati Raj Bhawan, Ghaziabad Sahastrradhara Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaju0214A Assessee By : Shri S. B. Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri N. G. Joseph Gangte, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

charitable institution registered u/s. 12A of the Act and is claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 23.02.2021 claiming the benefits u/s 11 of the Act. The return was accompanied with the audit report in form No.10B. Form No.10 was also filed before the due date

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

4. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR pointed out that issues raised in the grounds of the present appeal are almost covered by the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Divya Yog Mandir Trust Vs. JCIT in ITA. No. 387/Del./2013. 5. Ground Nos. 1 to 6 : These grounds are on the issue

ACIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R S Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Acit (Exemption) Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation Circle 1(1), E 2 Block Vs. B 60-61, Naraina Industrial Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan Area, Phase Ii Dr.Shyama Parsad New Delhi 110 028 Mukherjee Civic Centre New Delhi 110 002 Pan: Aaatj0402B (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable or religious trust whose income is exempt under section 11 or 12, is required to submit a return of income by virtue of subsection (4A) of section 139 of the Act. It was submitted that subsection (1) of section 39 provides the time within which return is required to be submitted voluntarily. Subsection (4

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)

4. The various sub-sections of section 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 sets out the acceptable

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 Trust, Circle-2, Meerut Railway Road, Meerut PAN: AABTS7321M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, Adv Revenue by: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 02/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 23/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. ITA No. 4622/Del/2012 is filed by the revenue against the order of ld CIT(A), Meerut

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other