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

M/S. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

section 2(15) would have no application and they would not deprive the trust or institution of its charitable character. What these last concluding words require is not that the trust or institution whose purpose is advancement of an object of general public utility should not carry on- any activity for profit at all but that the purpose

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

17] It may be noticed that sub-clause (ii) of clause(c) of sub-section (i) of section 11, in substance provides for the same condition which was imposed by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of the proviso to section 4(3)(i) of the old Act. Sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section

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

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Trust's case [1975] 101 ITR 234, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the provisions of section 11 read with section 2(15) of the Act which defines "charitable purpose" observed as under (at page 241) : "The sense in which the word 'education' has been used in section 2(15) in the systematic instruction, schooling or training given

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. Allied Motors vs CIT 224 ITR 667 (SC); and 3. CIT vs Pyari Lal Kasam Manji & Company 198 ITR 110 (Orissa High Court). 8.10. Even otherwise it was submitted that by applying the various Rules of Interpretation the scope and ambit of section 80IA (2A) of the Act cannot be Page 11 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 restricted

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

2. Allied Motors vs CIT 224 ITR 667 (SC); and 3. CIT vs Pyari Lal Kasam Manji & Company 198 ITR 110 (Orissa High Court). 8.10. Even otherwise it was submitted that by applying the various Rules of Interpretation the scope and ambit of section 80IA (2A) of the Act cannot be Page 11 of 44 I.T.A .No.-3304 & 3386/Del/2010 restricted

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

17. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, Revenue has not brought any material on record to prove that the Assessee trust was indeed having an option to receive capitation fee and no such evidence was brought on record which suggests that Sh. V. Mathiyalgan was authorized to collect capitation fees. There is no evidence on record to show that

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

17. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, Revenue has not brought any material on record to prove that the Assessee trust was indeed having an option to receive capitation fee and no such evidence was brought on record which suggests that Sh. V. Mathiyalgan was authorized to collect capitation fees. There is no evidence on record to show that

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

17. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, Revenue has not brought any material on record to prove that the Assessee trust was indeed having an option to receive capitation fee and no such evidence was brought on record which suggests that Sh. V. Mathiyalgan was authorized to collect capitation fees. There is no evidence on record to show that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

17. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, Revenue has not brought any material on record to prove that the Assessee trust was indeed having an option to receive capitation fee and no such evidence was brought on record which suggests that Sh. V. Mathiyalgan was authorized to collect capitation fees. There is no evidence on record to show that

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

17. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, Revenue has not brought any material on record to prove that the Assessee trust was indeed having an option to receive capitation fee and no such evidence was brought on record which suggests that Sh. V. Mathiyalgan was authorized to collect capitation fees. There is no evidence on record to show that

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

17. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, Revenue has not brought any material on record to prove that the Assessee trust was indeed having an option to receive capitation fee and no such evidence was brought on record which suggests that Sh. V. Mathiyalgan was authorized to collect capitation fees. There is no evidence on record to show that

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

2), only if it is established in India for a charitable purpose..." Mr Sharma would submit that there is no real difference between the expressions "established not for the purpose of profit" and "established for a charitable purpose" and that, therefore, the certificates issued to his client under Section 80- G of the Income Tax Act effectively conclude the factual

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 or institution has been withdrawn or rescinded.” 6.2. Prior to such insertion, the position of law was like this. Section 2(15) defined the ‘charitable purpose’. This is an inclusive definition and, therefore, in view of the opening phrase of section 2, which reads as “unless the context otherwise requires”, the said definition could not be imported to institutions

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

section 2(15) of the Act. The very observation of Ld. CIT(A) in this regard at page No. 16 of -the first appellate order that yoga is a discipline appears to address more the issues of spiritual well being rather than address the problems associated with the more, worldly "medical relief" itself suggests that the Ld. CIT(A) remained

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