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

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

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

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

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

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 Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently

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

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 Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently

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

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 Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently

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

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanpawai Trust , Vs. Dcit B-60-61 C/O Bajaj Auto Ltd. Cirlce 49(1) Naraina Industrial Area Phase Ii Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aaatp0445J)

Section 234C of the Act may kindly be deleted as the same is contrary to the law and unwarranted. The appellant hereby reserves the right to add to, alter or amplify the above grounds of appeal. 7. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that assessee is a 4 charitable trust

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

Accordingly.'\nIn the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the ground\ncommon in all the years deserves to be sustained. Resultantly the appeals are\nallowed with event to fol...

charitable trust, filed its returns and sought a refund. The AO processed the returns under section 143(1) and denied the refund by levying tax at a flat rate of 30% and a surcharge of 37%, along with interest under section 234C

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

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 section

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

Accordingly.'\nIn the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the ground\ncommon in all the years deserves to be sustained. Resultantly the appeals are\nallowed with event to fol...

charitable trust where beneficiaries' shares are not defined. The tax should be computed at the normal rates applicable to an Association of Persons.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "234C

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

ROSE TRUST,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2021-22

charitable trust Association of Persons (AOP) not enjoying benefits of Section 11 of the Act and is liable to pay tax at the slab rates applicable in the case of an Individual, etc. 3. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of surcharge at the Rate of 37% (i.е., Rs.6,10,659/-) instead of applicable Rate

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

The appeals are allowed with event to follow accordingly

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

234C of the Act is concerned, it was submitted that the same is consequential. 4. Although ld. DR has defended the orders of the ld. tax authorities below, what we find is that the assessee is a charitable trust engaged in carrying out ITAs No.2209, 2210 & 2211/Del/2025 charitable activities by granting donation to other trusts/institutions holding valid eligibility services

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)

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 together

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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 together