RAM SARAN DAS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: -------] Ram Saran Das Kishori Lal Commissioner Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, (Exemption), Room No.24.05, E-2 Block, 24Th Floor, Civic Centre, A-27, Friends Colony East, Vs New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaatr0783P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Arpit Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.11.2025

section is 12AB(4) not applicable to registrations u/s 12A, i.e., cancellation of registration by the CIT(E) vide impugned order is invalid. Relying on decision of Lakhmi Chand Charitable Society vs PCIT: ITA No. 1803/Del/2024 (Del Trib.), Islamic Academy of Education vs PCIT: [2024] 160 taxmann.com 217 (Bang Trib.), M.M. Patel Charitable Trust

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Trust vs. AC IT (supra), it was held that none-use of the land or passiveness of land is not equal to its holding the land for non-charitable purposes. Thus, in our view, the assessee- society having purchased the above- mentioned land, has used the accumulated amount for charitable and educational purposes. No evidence have been brought on record

SOCIETY FOR WELFARE AWARENESS RESEARCH AND GUIDANCE,DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

160 (Allahabad Tribunal) while accepting the donation of Rs.1 Crore from M/s Herbicure Health Care Bio Herbal Research Foundation for AY 2017-18, has observed as under:- “5. We have considered the rival submissions. In exercising the powers under section 12AA(3) for cancellation of registration under section 12A/12AA by Pr.CIT/CIT, following conditions have to be satisfied. (1) That

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 )

Trust vs. ITO: 173 TTJ 273(Asr.) Reference may also be made to the following decisions wherein it has been held that proviso to section 2(15) of the Act does not debar a charitable trust/institution from charging fees for an activity carried out in pursuance to the objects of the trust/institution  Mudra Foundation for Communications Research & Education vs. CCIT

NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUND 5 SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION 2(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

section 11(2) of the Act did not survive. The only one reason survived after first appeal is that the appellant/assessee has not categorically specified the charitable purpose for which the said funds, in both the AYs, have been set apart. 7. The Ld. Counsel argued that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) was contrary to the decision

NATIONAL CHILDRENS FUND S5, SIRI INSTITUTIONAL AREA, HAUZ KHAS NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXMP 2(4) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.”

section 11(2) of the Act did not survive. The only one reason survived after first appeal is that the appellant/assessee has not categorically specified the charitable purpose for which the said funds, in both the AYs, have been set apart. 7. The Ld. Counsel argued that the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) was contrary to the decision

INDIAN INTERNATIONAL CENTRE,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 India International Centre, Vs. Cit (E), 40, Max Muller Marg, Room No.2620, Lodhi Estate, Civic Centre, New Delhi. Jl Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaati0660C

trust cannot be called as serving the general public. He further noted that the entire activities of the assessee also include providing of services such as accommodation, food and beverages, etc., for payment of charges which is caught within the mischief proviso 1 and 2 to section 2(15) read with 3rd proviso to section

VIDYA EDUCATION INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

160) relied on behalf of assessee nor the order of CIT(A) for AY 2010-11 is helpful to the assessee. The decision in Queen's Educational Society relates to section 10(23C), however the case of the assessee is hit by section 13 of the Act. Further, the issue in AY 2010-11 may be relevant for the conditions

PRACHEEN SHRI AGGARWAL DIGAMBER JAIN PANCHAYAT DELHI,DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed as indicated above for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

160 taxman.com 154 (Pune) Birmani Charitable Foundation v/s CIT (Exemption) 11. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that previously vide clarification circular no. 06/2023 dated 24.05.2023 CBDT had in exercise of its power u/s 119 of the Act, extended the period of limitation till 30.09.2023 by which limit had been since extended till 30.09.2023 for grant of approval

GANDHI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY,KARNAL vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 3476/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Gandhi College Of Pharmacy, Vs Acit, Near Iti Chowk, G. T. Road, Circle, Karnal Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5629D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Action Of A.O. In Holding That The Assesses Is Not Eligible For Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Iiiad) Of The Act.

160. vi) Birla Vidhya Vihar Trust Vs. CIT (1982) 136 ITR 445 Cal. vii) ACIT Vs. Rajasthan State Text Book Board (2000) 244 ITR 667 (Raj) viii) CIT Vs. Lagan Kala Upvan (2003) 259 ITR 489 (Del) ix) CIT Vs. Vidya Vikas Vihar (2004) 265 ITR 489 (Bom) x) Gujarat State Co.Op. Union

SETH ANANDRAM JAIPURIA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 11 (4A) the same has to be taxed separately, because assessee is not maintaining separate books of accounts. Such a reasoning of the AO cannot be sustained, because these activities are incidental to the main objects of the trust, i.e., carrying out educational activities and it cannot be reckoned as a separate business activities for which separate books

SETH ANANDRAM JAIPURIA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 11 (4A) the same has to be taxed separately, because assessee is not maintaining separate books of accounts. Such a reasoning of the AO cannot be sustained, because these activities are incidental to the main objects of the trust, i.e., carrying out educational activities and it cannot be reckoned as a separate business activities for which separate books

SETH ANANDRAM JAIPURIA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 11 (4A) the same has to be taxed separately, because assessee is not maintaining separate books of accounts. Such a reasoning of the AO cannot be sustained, because these activities are incidental to the main objects of the trust, i.e., carrying out educational activities and it cannot be reckoned as a separate business activities for which separate books

ARYA SMAJ MODEL TOWN,DELHI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL -3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

160 taxmann.com 217 (Bangalore - Trib.)it was held as under: - 3) We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The main argument of the ld. A.R. is that the assessee was granted registration u/s 12A of the Act on 1-6-1992. Thereafter, due to amendment in provisions of section w.e.f. 1-4-2021 requiring

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

Appeal are allowed

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

trust property. Here the facts of transaction is real. (Para 7.4 page 11) the case are altogether and not at all relevant in present appellant's case. iii) In Sumati Dayal v. CIT: In this case assessee shown certain amounts in capital account in books claiming same to be winning from horse races. For this contention she filed sworn statement

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. LAJPAT RAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

trust. 12. Further, in Mallikarjun School Society vs.CCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 160 (Uttarakhand), the Hon’ble High Court held that an educational institution will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purposes since the object is not to make profit and the decisive or as a test as observed by the Hon’ble Apex court is whether

LAJPAT RAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

trust. 12. Further, in Mallikarjun School Society vs.CCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 160 (Uttarakhand), the Hon’ble High Court held that an educational institution will not cease to be one existing solely for educational purposes since the object is not to make profit and the decisive or as a test as observed by the Hon’ble Apex court is whether

M/S. SETH ANANDRAM JAIPURIA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Charitable Society Vs. ACIT it was held that in the absence of any clinching evidence to show that the hostel facilities and transport facilities were provided to anybody other than students and staff of the trust. The transport and Hostel facilities provided by the educational institution shall be construed to be the intrinsic part of the 'educational activities