ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Charitable Trust, Meerut is siphoning the found of the society by misappropriation of accounts by way of making advance payment under the head of construction of buildings. Here also there is clear-cut of violation the provision of section 13(2) of IT. Further it is also clear that construction of building can not be allowed as application because construction

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 was changed to ‘IILM Foundation’ vide amendment Deed dated 26th July, 2007. The assessee was duly registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide registration granted on 01.02.2001 read with modification dated 02.06.2008. In furtherance of its predominant object of imparting education, during the year under consideration, the assessee was running the following educational

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 was changed to ‘IILM Foundation’ vide amendment Deed dated 26th July, 2007. The assessee was duly registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide registration granted on 01.02.2001 read with modification dated 02.06.2008. In furtherance of its predominant object of imparting education, during the year under consideration, the assessee was running the following educational

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 was changed to ‘IILM Foundation’ vide amendment Deed dated 26th July, 2007. The assessee was duly registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide registration granted on 01.02.2001 read with modification dated 02.06.2008. In furtherance of its predominant object of imparting education, during the year under consideration, the assessee was running the following educational

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 was changed to ‘IILM Foundation’ vide amendment Deed dated 26th July, 2007. The assessee was duly registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide registration granted on 01.02.2001 read with modification dated 02.06.2008. In furtherance of its predominant object of imparting education, during the year under consideration, the assessee was running the following educational

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 was changed to ‘IILM Foundation’ vide amendment Deed dated 26th July, 2007. The assessee was duly registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) vide registration granted on 01.02.2001 read with modification dated 02.06.2008. In furtherance of its predominant object of imparting education, during the year under consideration, the assessee was running the following educational

M/S. MANJEET KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 11 of the Act whereby exemption is to be provided to the extent which income of the charitable trust is applied to charitable or religious purposes in India. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the income

M/S. MANJIT KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 11 of the Act whereby exemption is to be provided to the extent which income of the charitable trust is applied to charitable or religious purposes in India. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the income

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Facts of the A.Y. 2009-10 is taken as it is the lead case. Return declaring income of Rs. Nil after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 30/09/2009 in status of AOP (T) which was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Income

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Facts of the A.Y. 2009-10 is taken as it is the lead case. Return declaring income of Rs. Nil after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 30/09/2009 in status of AOP (T) which was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Income

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

234B and 234C of Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Facts of the A.Y. 2009-10 is taken as it is the lead case. Return declaring income of Rs. Nil after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 30/09/2009 in status of AOP (T) which was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Income

VINDHYA TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanvindhya Trust, Vs. Dcit, Circle 49 (1), B – 60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Delhi. Naraina Industrial Estate, Delhi – 110 028. (Pan : Aaatv0303K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mahender Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Chand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.05.2025 Date Of Order : 23.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) – 3, Hyderabad [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Jcit (A)] Dated 12.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground 1 - Rate Of Tax: The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Has Erred In Upholding Levy Of Tax At Flat Rate Of30%, Instead Of Normal Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of The Appellant. The Learned Cit(A) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Is An Association Of Persons (Aop)/Charitable Trust Not Claiming Benefits Of Section 11 Of The Act & Is Liable To Pay Tax At The Slab Rates Applicable In The Case Of An Individual, Etc. The Appellant Prays That The Learned Assessing Officer Be Directed To Re-Compute

234B and 234C may kindly be deleted as U1e same is contrary to the law and unwarranted.” 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is an AOP, filed its return of income for the AY 2021-22 on 11.10.2021 declaring total income of Rs.1,18,24,410/-. The return was processed under

DSOB CLASS OF 64 CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms stated above

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is unjustified. 3 DSOB Class of 64 Charitable Trusts Vs. DCIT

CARE TODAY FUND,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Care Today Fund, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-26, First Floor, Exemption 1(3), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-1100 01 Pan :Aaatc3762B (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable purpose. Vide notice under Section 142(1) dated 19.12.2019, explanation to specific queries raised was sought. The assessee filed his replies accordingly. On completion of proceeding, Ld. AO vide order dated 27.12.2019, made addition of Rs.1,89,64,378/- as deemed income. 4. Against order dated 27.12.2019 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee preferred appeal before

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

charitable institution entitled to\nthe benefits of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act.\n9. Without prejudice to the abovementioned grounds of\nappeal, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not providing the\nbenefit of the provisions of Section 11 (2) of the Act while\ncomputing the total income of the Appellant.\nGeneral\n10. That

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Since, the issue involved in the present appeals are identical, both the appeals are heard

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT E (CIRCLE), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 2. Since, the issue involved in the present appeals are identical, both the appeals are heard

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

charitable purpose‟. As regards the balance 64%, the DGIT(E) erroneously classified scholarship schemes under the head “object of general public utility‟. However, this Court holds that since scholarship schemes are directed towards incentivising students to pursue education, it must fall under the category of “education‟ as opposed the residual category. This determination sufficiently establish that Hamdard‟s objects fall