DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

160/- and Rs. 20,25,000/-. Assessee trust has also given advance of Rs. 48,10,240/- for flat. The AO issued notice to assessee as to why the amount of Rs. 48,10,240/- should not be added to the income of the assessee, which was not invested for charitable purposes. The assessee in the written submission submitted before

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

160 taxmann.com 217 (Bang Trib.), M.M. Patel Charitable Trust vs PCIT: [2025] 172 taxmann.com 316 (Pune Trib.), Meenakshi Foundation vs PCIT: [2025] 175 taxmann.com 990 (Del Trib.) and Poona Obstretics & Gynaecological Society vs PCIT: [2025] 174 taxmann.com 218 (Pun Trib.), it was contended that now it is settled that Section 12AB(4) clearly deals with the registration or provisional registration

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

HESPERA REALTY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-11(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar

Trust. c. The real motive of amalgamation was never brought to the notice of the Hon’ble High Court. d. The Capital Reserve created to the scheme of amalgamation is in reality, a Revaluation Reserve as the valuation is as per the valuation of Revaluation Reserve. 28. On this issue, during the hearing before us, the ld. AR argued that

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CB RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

160/- --- 143(3) (58A-58G) 2006-07 3,81,76,000/- --- 143(1) Reliance was placed on rule of consistency as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Saomi Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 and CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 vi) That burden was upon the Assessing Officer

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.B. RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

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

160/- --- 143(3) (58A-58G) 2006-07 3,81,76,000/- --- 143(1) Reliance was placed on rule of consistency as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Saomi Satsang vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 and CIT vs. J. K. Charitable Trust 308 ITR 161 vi) That burden was upon the Assessing Officer

TRIVENI TURBINE LTD,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Charitable Trust Total 1,61,58,810 95,76,405 3. The assessing officer and CIT(A) disallowed the deduction claimed by the appellant holding that donations forming part of CSR expenditure is not allowable as deduction under section 80G of the Act. 4. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the aforesaid issue is no longer re-integra

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODI INDUSTRIES LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S. U.P. DISTILLERY ASSOCIATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

U.P. DISTILLERS ASSOCIATION PHD HOUSE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD., MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S NARANG DISTILLERY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss