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

196/- from “Riveridale Preparatory School Society”. Before the AO, the assessee submitted that the fee was received from management services rendered by the assessee trust to “Riveridale Preparatory School Society” which itself is registered under section 12A. The appellant had submitted that the trust was approached by the “Riveridale Preparatory School Society” to provide managerial, technical, educational and co-cordial

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)

trust. Likewise the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rajneesh Foundation (supra) is not relevant as the said decision was rendered prior to introduction of proviso to section 2 (15), when there used to be no dispute insofar as classification of charitable objectives was concerned for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 11/12

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

trust. Likewise the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rajneesh Foundation (supra) is not relevant as the said decision was rendered prior to introduction of proviso to section 2 (15), when there used to be no dispute insofar as classification of charitable objectives was concerned for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 11/12

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum marginal rate of income-tax will apply only to that part of the income which has forfeited exemption under the said provisions.” 30. Similarly, he pointed out that the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO, 2008-TIOL-108 held

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum marginal rate of income-tax will apply only to that part of the income which has forfeited exemption under the said provisions.” 30. Similarly, he pointed out that the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO, 2008-TIOL-108 held

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum marginal rate of income-tax will apply only to that part of the income which has forfeited exemption under the said provisions.” 30. Similarly, he pointed out that the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO, 2008-TIOL-108 held

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum marginal rate of income-tax will apply only to that part of the income which has forfeited exemption under the said provisions.” 30. Similarly, he pointed out that the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO, 2008-TIOL-108 held

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1)(c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum marginal rate of income-tax will apply only to that part of the income which has forfeited exemption under the said provisions.” 30. Similarly, he pointed out that the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO, 2008-TIOL-108 held

DEVKI DEVI FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DIT (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: -- Devki Devi Foundation, Vs Dit (Exemptions), Plot No.15, 3Rd Floor, 2, Press Enclave Road, Saket, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatd5283G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2011 Of The Dit (Exemptions), Delhi Withdrawing Registration Granted Earlier U/S 12A Of The It Act Since Inception.

section:- • Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority vs. ADIT(E): 58 SOT 196 (Mum.) • Urmila Devi Charitable Trust v. CIT(E): ITA No.4136/Del/2017

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable trust carrying on activities in the field of education. It is a part of Santosh Group, which is also engaged in the field of education in Medical, Dental, Para-medical and other courses. For AY 2007-08, assessee filed its return of income on 31st October, 2007 4. stating that it has excess of expenditure over income amounting

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

ICRW GROUP GRATUITY TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year 2021-22 Icrw Group Gratuity Trust, Vs Cit (Exemptions), C-59, Ground Floor, Delhi. South Extension Part Ii, New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Aabti3510L Assessment Year: 2020-21 Iclei South Asia Group Gratuity Trust, Vs Cit (Exemptions), C-3, Lower Ground Floor, Delhi Green Park Extension, New Delhi – 110 016. Pan: Aabti7567H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Chaudhuri, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari,Cit,Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023

trust could not be considered as a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act, we find that this issue has been addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority & Ors in Civil Appeal No.21762 of 2017 dated 19.10.2022 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court

ICLEI SOUTH ASIA GROUP GRATUITY TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year 2021-22 Icrw Group Gratuity Trust, Vs Cit (Exemptions), C-59, Ground Floor, Delhi. South Extension Part Ii, New Delhi 110 049 Pan: Aabti3510L Assessment Year: 2020-21 Iclei South Asia Group Gratuity Trust, Vs Cit (Exemptions), C-3, Lower Ground Floor, Delhi Green Park Extension, New Delhi – 110 016. Pan: Aabti7567H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Chaudhuri, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari,Cit,Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2023

trust could not be considered as a charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act, we find that this issue has been addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT (Exemption) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority & Ors in Civil Appeal No.21762 of 2017 dated 19.10.2022 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court

NALWADI CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMP 2(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1778/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2020-21) Nalwadi Charitable Trust, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-Ii, New Delhi 110028 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaatn-0324-N

196 (Cal.); vi) Society for Integrated Development in Urban & Rural Areas (Sidur) Vs. DCIT, 90 ITD 493 (Hyd); vii) Sri Dwarkadheesh Charitable Trust Vs. IT, 98 ITR 557 (All.) viii) DCIT Vs. Nasik Gymkhana, 77 ITD 500 (Pune) 16. Further, we have noted that decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt.Basanti Devi & Shri Chakhan