MODEL VILLAGE TRUST,DELHI vs. SH. PRAKASH DUBEY CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos. 3189 & 3190/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:- बनाम Model Village Trust, Sh. Prakash Dubey, E-89, 4Th Floor, Flat No.402, Vs. Cit Exemption, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aagtm6481K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

155 (ITAT Chandigarh), it has been held that after examining the issue as per order of ITAT, Ld. CIT(E) has not recorded any adverse observations in the impugned order in respect of charitable activities carried out by the appellant trust. Thus, Ld. CIT(E) ought to have granted registration to the appellant trust. • In the case

MODEL VILLAGE TRUST ,DELHI vs. SH. PRAKASH DUBEY CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos. 3189 & 3190/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:- बनाम Model Village Trust, Sh. Prakash Dubey, E-89, 4Th Floor, Flat No.402, Vs. Cit Exemption, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aagtm6481K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

155 (ITAT Chandigarh), it has been held that after examining the issue as per order of ITAT, Ld. CIT(E) has not recorded any adverse observations in the impugned order in respect of charitable activities carried out by the appellant trust. Thus, Ld. CIT(E) ought to have granted registration to the appellant trust. • In the case

ADIT(OSD)(E), NEW DELHI vs. BIRD EDUCATION SOCIETY FOR TRAVEL & TOURISM, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Trust vs. CIT 101 ITR 234 (SC) and Saurashtra Education Foundation vs. CIT (2005) 273 ITR 139 (Guj.). It was concluded that the assessee was only carrying on coaching classes for various courses on commercial lines with a profit motive. As a result thereof, it was held that the activities carried on by the assessee fell outside the purview

KPMG FOUNDATION,GURGAON vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), FARIDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the Act in the absence of connection of such expenses with the people engaged in the activities of the trust.” 2. The facts in brief are that assessee is a public charitable trust which was constituted by trust deed dated 27.7.2005 with the objectives of providing; i) relief to the poor; ii) education; iii) medical relief

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Charitable Trust v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax: (2002) 257 ITR 275 (Delhi) had held as under: “10. The word 'investment' means to lay out money in business with a view to obtain income or profit. In order to constitute an investment the amount laid down should be capable of resulting in an income or return or profit to the investor

ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable nature of the trust cannot be doubted, which proposition also find support from ADIT vs. MANAV BHARTI CHILD AND PSYCHOLOGY 20 SOT 517 (Del.), wherein it has been held that, in the context of section 11 and 13(l)(c) of the Act are attracted. The decision of the Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Privar Seva

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable nature of the trust cannot be doubted, which proposition also find support from ADIT vs. MANAV BHARTI CHILD AND PSYCHOLOGY 20 SOT 517 (Del.), wherein it has been held that, in the context of section 11 and 13(l)(c) of the Act are attracted. The decision of the Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Privar Seva

DDIT (E), DELHI vs. PETROTECH, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiddit(E), Vs. Petrotech, Inv. Cir-Ii, Room No. 306, Aayakar 601/603, Tolstoy House, Tolstoy Bhawan, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi Pan:Aaaap0965E (Appellant) (Respondent )

155 ITD 1150 (Mum.)  DDIT(E) vs. Council For Leather Exports: 41 ITR(T) 697 (Chen.)  Lions Club of Anna Nagar Charitable Trust vs. DDIT(E): 40 ITR(T) 746 (Chen.) Further, in the following cases, it has been specifically held that activity of organising conferences, seminars etc. against payment of fees will not hit by above proviso to section

URMILA DEVI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Before Shri G. D.Agrawal & Before Shri G. Before Shri G. D.Agrawal, D.Agrawal & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Charitable Vs. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Commissioner of Income Tax Trust, Trust, Trust, Trust, (Exemptions), (Exemptions), (Exemptions), (Exemptions), R-9/42, Raj Nagar, 9/42, Raj Nagar, 9/42, Raj Nagar, 9/42, Raj Nagar, T.C. 46V, U.P. State Construction & T.C. 46V, U.P. State Construction & T.C. 46V, U.P. State Construction & T.C. 46V, U.P. State Construction & Gha Ghaziabad, Gha Gha ziabad, ziabad, ziabad

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD 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

155,06,771/- and Rs. 200,00,000/- without appreciating that burden to prove that transaction is bogus/sham has remained un-discharged from side of Revenue. 7.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,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

155,06,771/- and Rs. 200,00,000/- without appreciating that burden to prove that transaction is bogus/sham has remained un-discharged from side of Revenue. 7.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,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

155,06,771/- and Rs. 200,00,000/- without appreciating that burden to prove that transaction is bogus/sham has remained un-discharged from side of Revenue. 7.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,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

155,06,771/- and Rs. 200,00,000/- without appreciating that burden to prove that transaction is bogus/sham has remained un-discharged from side of Revenue. 7.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition

SATISH DEV JAIN,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

155,06,771/- and Rs. 200,00,000/- without appreciating that burden to prove that transaction is bogus/sham has remained un-discharged from side of Revenue. 7.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition

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

155,06,771/- and Rs. 200,00,000/- without appreciating that burden to prove that transaction is bogus/sham has remained un-discharged from side of Revenue. 7.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition

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

155,06,771/- and Rs. 200,00,000/- without appreciating that burden to prove that transaction is bogus/sham has remained un-discharged from side of Revenue. 7.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the action of Ld. AO in making addition

LAKSHYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11 are applicable in respect of income derived from the property held for charitable purposes. Whereas, in the facts of the case it has been found that these unexplained sums in the shape of unexplained unsecured loans though are income of the appellant but the same are not in the nature „income derived‟ from the property held for charitable

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Charitable Trust was arrested at Chandigarh and was charge sheeted too. The assessee was also directed to produce copy of the charge sheet filed by the CBI before the special CBI judge.” 4. Before the AO, the assessee has clarified that no discrepancy as such was found nor could be established that Rs.2 crores were paid by the institute through