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

Charitable Prajanalay Trust. It was created by a trust deed drawn up on 08.09.1971 by B. D. Mehta, partner of the firm M/s. Bishan Das Girdharilal and Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o. B. D. Mehta, partner of M/s. Raj Kumar& Sons Co. These are the two founder - trustees. They settled an amount of 2,200/- upon trust. Admittedly, this

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

Charitable Prajanalay Trust. It was created by a trust deed drawn up on 08.09.1971 by B. D. Mehta, partner of the firm M/s. Bishan Das Girdharilal and Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o. B. D. Mehta, partner of M/s. Raj Kumar& Sons Co. These are the two founder - trustees. They settled an amount of 2,200/- upon trust. Admittedly, this

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Charitable Prajanalay Trust. It was created by a trust deed drawn up on 08.09.1971 by B. D. Mehta, partner of the firm M/s. Bishan Das Girdharilal and Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o. B. D. Mehta, partner of M/s. Raj Kumar& Sons Co. These are the two founder - trustees. They settled an amount of 2,200/- upon trust. Admittedly, this

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Charitable Prajanalay Trust. It was created by a trust deed drawn up on 08.09.1971 by B. D. Mehta, partner of the firm M/s. Bishan Das Girdharilal and Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o. B. D. Mehta, partner of M/s. Raj Kumar& Sons Co. These are the two founder - trustees. They settled an amount of 2,200/- upon trust. Admittedly, this

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

Charitable Prajanalay Trust. It was created by a trust deed drawn up on 08.09.1971 by B. D. Mehta, partner of the firm M/s. Bishan Das Girdharilal and Raj Kumar Mehta, S/o. B. D. Mehta, partner of M/s. Raj Kumar & Sons Co. These are the two founder – trustees. They settled an amount of `2,200/- upon trust. Admittedly, this

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

Appeal is allowed

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

Charitable Trust: 90 ITD 569 (Chd)   Gaur Brahmin Vidya Pracharini Sabha v. CIT: 34 SOT 371 (Del.) In view of the aforesaid, since the facts in the present case of the assessee in the earlier assessment years are identical to the assessment year under consideration, thus, on the basis of principle of consistency, the assessee should not have been denied

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)

charitable nature as per the first and second proviso of sec.2(15) of IT Act. Accordingly the trust no longer remains entitled for deduction u/s. 11 of the IT Act. (5) Hence order of the Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of AO be restored. (6) Appellant craves leave to modify/amend or add any one or more grounds

SUNSHINE EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 11 to assessee society has held that, since imparting of education is a matter of pure charity, therefore, the educational institution is not permitted to receive or recover the cost of charity from its beneficiary by way of fees, i.e., charging of fees itself would amount uncharitable activity. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition at all, because

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 11 to assessee society has held that, since imparting of education is a matter of pure charity, therefore, the educational institution is not permitted to receive or recover the cost of charity from its beneficiary by way of fees, i.e., charging of fees itself would amount uncharitable activity. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition at all, because

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

charitable within the meaning of sec. 2(15) of the IT Act 1961 from the nature of actual activities, accounts and transactions and as such the assessee not ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 8 entitled for exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the undersigned proceed to assess his income as a business entity

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

charitable within the meaning of sec. 2(15) of the IT Act 1961 from the nature of actual activities, accounts and transactions and as such the assessee not ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 8 entitled for exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the undersigned proceed to assess his income as a business entity

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

charitable within the meaning of sec. 2(15) of the IT Act 1961 from the nature of actual activities, accounts and transactions and as such the assessee not ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 8 entitled for exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the undersigned proceed to assess his income as a business entity

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

charitable within the meaning of sec. 2(15) of the IT Act 1961 from the nature of actual activities, accounts and transactions and as such the assessee not ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 8 entitled for exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the undersigned proceed to assess his income as a business entity

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

charitable within the meaning of sec. 2(15) of the IT Act 1961 from the nature of actual activities, accounts and transactions and as such the assessee not ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 8 entitled for exemption u/s. 11 and 12 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the undersigned proceed to assess his income as a business entity

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SHANKAR TRADING CO. P. LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

200 ITR 281 (Guj.). 27. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that since elimination of competition from the Trust did not happen simultaneous with acquisition of Katha and Cutch business of the Trust, enhancement of lease rent, even to the extent it is attributable to elimination of competition from the Trust, would not constitute capital expenditure. In our view

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. P.LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

200 ITR 281 (Guj.). 27. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that since elimination of competition from the Trust did not happen simultaneous with acquisition of Katha and Cutch business of the Trust, enhancement of lease rent, even to the extent it is attributable to elimination of competition from the Trust, would not constitute capital expenditure. In our view

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. P. LTD.

The appeals stand disposed of

200 ITR 281 (Guj.). 27. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that since elimination of competition from the Trust did not happen simultaneous with acquisition of Katha and Cutch business of the Trust, enhancement of lease rent, even to the extent it is attributable to elimination of competition from the Trust, would not constitute capital expenditure. In our view

C.I.T vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO. PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

200 ITR 281 (Guj.). 27. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that since elimination of competition from the Trust did not happen simultaneous with acquisition of Katha and Cutch business of the Trust, enhancement of lease rent, even to the extent it is attributable to elimination of competition from the Trust, would not constitute capital expenditure. In our view