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

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

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

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

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

139(1). 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

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

139(1). 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

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution shall be made by him without giving effect to the order passed by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under clause (ii) or (iii) of the fifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or clause (ii) or (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB

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

Appeal is allowed

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

5)(vi) was granted to the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that the assessing officer has, with the only intent of denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act, reclassified the activities undertaken by the assessee as being in the nature of “advancement of any other object of general

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

139 and sub-section (5) provides the mechanism to file a belated return, therefore, for A.Y 2018-19, even if the assessee files the return before the last date of filing of belated return the same should be treated as due compliance to section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act. For the year under appeal, the belated return could have

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

5. The Learned AO, however, did not heed to the aforesaid explanation of the Assessee and proceeded to determine the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 217,81,66,220/- vide his assessment order dated 21-04- 2021 on the ground that the income tax return was not filed before the due date prescribed under Section 139

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

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

charitable purpose in the hands of the donee trust; and the donor trust will not lose exemption under section 11 of the I. T. Act, 1961, merely because the donee trust did not spend the donation during the year of receipt itself. The above position may kindly be brought to the notice of all officers working in your charge

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

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)

5. Section 11 was inserted in the Income Tax Act 1961 providing for an exemption in respect of income from property held under trust wholly for charitable and religious purposes. 'Charitable purposes’ is defined in terms of section 2(15) of the Act to mean relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

charitable or religious purposes; but was claiming benefit of section 10(22) of the Act, which provided a specific exemption to certain educational institutions. Therefore, the provisions of Section 139(4A) of the Act, which required an Assessee claiming benefit under sections 11 and 12 of the Act to file a return if its income exceeded the maximum amount

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)

trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable or religious institution is invested or deposited in any of the modes other than those specified under section 11(5). It is also apparent that there is no limitation of applying 85% or less for the purpose of applicability of the said provision. Hence, he contention of the appellant

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

5 of 38 be in India, but the application should result and should be for the purposes of charitable and religious purposes in India. In this view of the matter the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee in respect of both the payment of the taxes under the VDIS and the expenditure incurred outside India and held that both

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

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

5 of 38 be in India, but the application should result and should be for the purposes of charitable and religious purposes in India. In this view of the matter the Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessee in respect of both the payment of the taxes under the VDIS and the expenditure incurred outside India and held that both

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) is merely a proviso to section 22(1) equivalent to section 139(1). e. The assessee further referred to various decisions