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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

sections 69A and 69C, as the provisions of Chapter VI "Aggregation of income and set-off or carry-forward of loss" are not applicable in the case of a charitable trust, viz. the appellant Trust. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate proceedings got totally vitiated as the remand report was not provided

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

sections 69A and 69C, as the provisions of Chapter VI "Aggregation of income and set-off or carry-forward of loss" are not applicable in the case of a charitable trust, viz. the appellant Trust. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate proceedings got totally vitiated as the remand report was not provided

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

sections 69A and 69C, as the provisions of Chapter VI "Aggregation of income and set-off or carry-forward of loss" are not applicable in the case of a charitable trust, viz. the appellant Trust. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate proceedings got totally vitiated as the remand report was not provided

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

sections 69A and 69C, as the provisions of Chapter VI "Aggregation of income and set-off or carry-forward of loss" are not applicable in the case of a charitable trust, viz. the appellant Trust. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate proceedings got totally vitiated as the remand report was not provided

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

trust is a valid application of income, and a lack of recent charitable activities does not invalidate the exemption. The AO's order to deny exemption and tax the sale proceeds was not sustainable.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "Section 11", "Section 12", "Section 12A", "Section 13", "Section 143

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

charitable trusts, the surplus accumulated under section 11(2) of the Act as discussed above got utilized to the extent of Rs. 20 Crores. Thus, the provisions of Section 11(3)(c)/11 (3)(d) of the Act got attracted. 4. In view of the above, our client has complied a Revised Return of Income and a Revised Statement

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

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

charitable trusts, the surplus accumulated under section 11(2) of the Act as discussed above got utilized to the extent of Rs. 20 Crores. Thus, the provisions of Section 11(3)(c)/11 (3)(d) of the Act got attracted. 4. In view of the above, our client has complied a Revised Return of Income and a Revised Statement

GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6054/Del./2018 : Asstt. Year : Gian Sagar Educational & Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Charitable Trust, Flat No. 509, Tax, Central Circle-27, 5Th Floor, Indraprakash Building, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5827B Assessee By : Sh. Amol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2020

section 143(3) of the Act was framed for the AY 2011-12, wherein on the aforesaid allegation of alleged payment of illegal gratification of Rs. 2 Cr. to Dr. Ketan Desai, an addition was made by treating the same as income earned from undisclosed sources in the hands of the assessee trust

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Charitable Trust and Institutions\nIncome of any fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational\ninstitution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv)\nor sub-clause (v) or ub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10\nor any trust or institution registered u/s 12AA or 12AB

M/S GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the A.O. made an addition under section 115BBC read with Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.12,50,83,785/- and Rs.10,02,70,000/- M/s. Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust

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

Appeal is allowed

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

charitable trust duly registered under section 12A vide order dated 14.03.2005 and is also duly approved under section 80G(5)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 27.08.2007. During the year the Assessing Officer in the assessment framed under section 143

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer held; following his predecessor's view, that the business was carried on not by the assessee - trust, but by the Board of Directors of the company who are managing the business. He, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act were not applicable and the provisions of Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer held; following his predecessor's view, that the business was carried on not by the assessee - trust, but by the Board of Directors of the company who are managing the business. He, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act were not applicable and the provisions of Section

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer held; following his predecessor's view, that the business was carried on not by the assessee - trust, but by the Board of Directors of the company who are managing the business. He, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act were not applicable and the provisions of Section

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

143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer held; following his predecessor's view, that the business was carried on not by the assessee - trust, but by the Board of Directors of the company who are managing the business. He, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act were not applicable and the provisions of Section

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer held; following his predecessor's view, that the business was carried on not by the assessee - trust, but by the Board of Directors of the company who are managing the business. He, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act were not applicable and the provisions of Section

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer held; following his predecessor's view, that the business was carried on not by the assessee - trust, but by the Board of Directors of the company who are managing the business. He, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act were not applicable and the provisions of Section

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

143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer held, following his predecessor‟s view, that the business was carried on not by the assessee – trust, but by the Board of Directors of the company who are managing the business. He, therefore, held that the provisions of Section 11(4) of the Act were not applicable and the provisions of Section