M/S. MANJIT KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 11 is the real income and not the income as assessed or assessable. Accordingly, while arriving at the rental income of the assessee-trust any expenditure incurred whatsoever related to the rental income has to be allowed as deduction and the net income which is the real income, will be treated as the income of the Trust. From

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT E (CIRCLE), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

trusts and not in case of organizations created by Government statutes, hence the tests in this regard cannot be applied in this case of the assessee. Still in the former judgment, it was held that since the income and the property of the assessee was liable to be applied solely or exclusively for the promotion of the object

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

trusts and not in case of organizations created by Government statutes, hence the tests in this regard cannot be applied in this case of the assessee. Still in the former judgment, it was held that since the income and the property of the assessee was liable to be applied solely or exclusively for the promotion of the object

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

145 of the Act, Section 13A of the Act did not empower the AO to estimate income from voluntary contributions and there was no material with the AO to make any such estimation. It was submitted that voluntary contributions did not fall under any head of income under Section 14 of the Act and was taxable only in terms

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

145 of the Act, Section 13A of the Act did not empower the AO to estimate income from voluntary contributions and there was no material with the AO to make any such estimation. It was submitted that voluntary contributions did not fall under any head of income under Section 14 of the Act and was taxable only in terms

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

145 of the Act, Section 13A of the Act did not empower the AO to estimate income from voluntary contributions and there was no material with the AO to make any such estimation. It was submitted that voluntary contributions did not fall under any head of income under Section 14 of the Act and was taxable only in terms

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

trust. Gr. 3.1. Reference made of provisions of sec 12AA without appreciating that said section is not applicable wef. 01.04.2021 (Pg 19-20)  Reference to sec 12AA has only been made since the registration granted earlier was governed by this section. Thus, reference to this section has been made along with currently applicable sec 12AB(4)  Decision

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

145 of the Act and the AO has to show that the account are either incomplete or incorrect is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of CIT v. Swastik Food Products [2015] 61 taximann.com 83/275 CTR 109 (HP). 19 9 THAT SECTION 68 OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MINORITY EDUCATION SOCIETY

Section 68 of the Act after noticing that the assessee had allegedly received donation of `49,00,000/- from CGS Maini Charitable Trust and another amount of `7,17,145

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI IV vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

145 (1) of the Act. However, the appellant ahs regularly employed this method. It is not the case of the A.O. that the books of accounts are not correct or complete. It would, therefore, not be correct to reject the books of accounts altogether and resort to estimation of profit in the manner done by the A.O. If the method

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

145(3) before making reference to DVO and this fact is evident from the order of AO. However, the fact that the objections raised by the assessee to the DVO’s report were not meet out, more particularly objections with respect to the application of CPWD rate viz-a-viz state PWD rates, self-supervision etc. It is the settled

DCIT EXEMPTION , GHAZIABAD vs. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI , KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

145(3) before making reference to DVO and this fact is evident from the order of AO. However, the fact that the objections raised by the assessee to the DVO’s report were not meet out, more particularly objections with respect to the application of CPWD rate viz-a-viz state PWD rates, self-supervision etc. It is the settled

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

145(3) before making reference to DVO and this fact is evident from the order of AO. However, the fact that the objections raised by the assessee to the DVO’s report were not meet out, more particularly objections with respect to the application of CPWD rate viz-a-viz state PWD rates, self-supervision etc. It is the settled

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

section 41(1) of the Act. Subjected to these observation, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. 97. Ground no. 17 is against deletion of disallowance of Rs. 61,90,518/- on account of non allocation of common expenses to sister concerns. The AO has relied upon observation of Special Auditor and has held that assessee has incurred miscellaneous

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri K.N. Chary.

section 41(1) of the Act. Subjected to these observation, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed. 97. Ground no. 17 is against deletion of disallowance of Rs. 61,90,518/- on account of non allocation of common expenses to sister concerns. The AO has relied upon observation of Special Auditor and has held that assessee has incurred miscellaneous

DCIT, CIRCLE- 8(1), NEW DELHI vs. EBIX SOFTWARE INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 145(3) of the Act and the profit declared has been accepted. It was submitted that when the AO has accepted separate books of account maintained by the assessee company in each of the unit which are supported by audit report and, therefore, the AO cannot allege that any expenditure of the revenue has been diverted to other unit

RAJASTHAN CLUB,,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2002-03 Vs. Adit(E), Inv. Circle-Ii, New Rajasthan Club, Dp-22, Pitampura, New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaatr6043G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Gautam Jain & P.K. Kamal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.10.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 22/03/2010 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xi, New Delhi, For Assessment Year 2002-03 Raising Following Grounds: “ 1. The Appellant, Rajasthan Club Is Engaged In Charitable Activity During The Financial Year 2001-02. The Appellant Is A Regular Income Tax Assessee & Assessed To Income Tax For The Last Several Years. All Income, Assets & Investments Are Disclosed To Income Tax Department In Regular Income Tax Returns. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Was Incorrect & Unjustified In Making A Reference Of The Property In This Case To The Valuation Officer Without Any Reason Basis & Evidence.

charitable purpose is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of the persons, whose list is mentioned in subsection 3 of section 13 of the Act. The list of such persons is reproduced as under: “3) The persons referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) are the following, namely :— (a) the author