DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132(4A) of the Act, presumption should have been drawn against the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan not against the Assessee trust and assessee has duly rebutted such presumption. 14. The Ld. Counsel has also taken us through the statements of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan recorded on oath u/s 131(1A) as well as 132(4) of the Income

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ANIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

charitable purpose", as used in Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, with the words "not for purposes of profit" used in Section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act. This, in my opinion, would be entirely impermissible in law. Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:30.05.2023 16:16:35 Signature Not Verified LPA 99/2018 Page 17

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

17 of 24 donee trust is also a public trust and it also under the judicial supervision of the High Court and to ascribe the meaning to the expression ―utilised‖ as ―applied‖ in section 11(3)(c) of the Act is also in consonance with the subsequent amendment in section 11(3A) of the Act. We have seen

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

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

17 of 24 donee trust is also a public trust and it also under the judicial supervision of the High Court and to ascribe the meaning to the expression ―utilised‖ as ―applied‖ in section 11(3)(c) of the Act is also in consonance with the subsequent amendment in section 11(3A) of the Act. We have seen

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

17 Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust ready reference, the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is reproduced below: “2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that charge was framed against the petitioners on 04.06.2012 for having allegedly committed the offence under Section

BHAGWANT SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

charitable purposes as are done to promote international welfare in which India is interested. In these two cases the income of the trust could be applied or spent outside India without losing exemption, provided the CBR passes an appropriate order. [Para 17] It may be noticed that sub-clause (ii) of clause(c) of sub-section

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

Charitable Trust held that requirement of Section 115BBC is not at with onus on the assessee-trust casted under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 i.e., to prove creditworthiness of the donors. He has given a finding that since the assessee-trust has maintained and disclosed name and address of the donors during the assessment proceedings and which were

DCIT (EXEMPTION), UTTAR PRADESH vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

charitable purpose u/s 2 (15) talks about the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The aforesaid predominant objects and the vision make it clear that the objects of the appellant are to provide ‘medical relief’ ‘impart education’ to the society at large and ‘relief to the poor’ hence the proviso to section 2 (15) does not apply

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

trust for religious or charitable purposes within the meaning of the substantive clause of section 4(3)(i).” 17. Thus

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

ACIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST,, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2010-11 Acit (Exemption) Vs Divya Yog Mandir Trust Circle, Cgo-1 Kripalu Bag, Hapur Road, Kankhal, Haridwar Ghaziabad (Pan Aaatd1114E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) of the Act and was not an object of general public utility. It was further held that business being only a means of achieving the object of the trust, exemption could not be denied. 6.6.3 The contention of the Ld. CIT(DR) also remained that the predominant objective of the appellant trust is to prepare and sell

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Exemptions), Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Kripalu Bagh, Cgo-Ii, Vs Kankhal, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Haridwar. Ghaziabad. (Pan: Aaatd1114E) Appellant Respondent Department By: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rohti Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2019 O R D E R

17 Assessment year 2013-14 that yoga as a system does not clearly fit into the definition of "medical" which in turn leads to the term "medical relief". The issue raised before the Cochin bench of the Tribunal in this case was as to whether assessee trust forms for propagating of Vedas was entitled to registration

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

Section 61. Generally a person has to get rid of the asset itself before ceasing to be assessable in respect of the income from that asset. A mere direction that the income from the business shall be applied to the charitable objects of a trust, without there being a settlement of the business itself upon trust, does not result

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

Section 61. Generally a person has to get rid of the asset itself before ceasing to be assessable in respect of the income from that asset. A mere direction that the income from the business shall be applied to the charitable objects of a trust, without there being a settlement of the business itself upon trust, does not result

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

Section 61. Generally a person has to get rid of the asset itself before ceasing to be assessable in respect of the income from that asset. A mere direction that the income from the business shall be applied to the charitable objects of a trust, without there being a settlement of the business itself upon trust, does not result