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

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)

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 and decided

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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 and decided

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

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

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

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), 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

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), 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

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

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

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

234D 4.6 are consequential in nature, hence, need not be adjudicated. The ground no. 9 is general in nature, hence, need not be adjudicated. 4.7 5. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR, but he relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. With

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

234D 4.6 are consequential in nature, hence, need not be adjudicated. The ground no. 9 is general in nature, hence, need not be adjudicated. 4.7 5. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR, but he relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. With

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

234D 4.6 are consequential in nature, hence, need not be adjudicated. The ground no. 9 is general in nature, hence, need not be adjudicated. 4.7 5. Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition of the Ld. AR, but he relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. With

SOCIETY OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Society Of Automobile Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust Ward-Ii, Manufacturers, Core-4B, 5Th Floor, New Delhi Indian Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaats4258A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. Rupesh Jain, Gaurav Jain & Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Advocates. Respondent By Smt. Anima Burnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 17.05.2016 Order

Trust (supra) held that the expression voluntary contribution is used in the Act to highlight the principle of non- compulsion in the matter of participating in charitable activities and to underline the gratuitous nature of donation and charitable activities. 7.8 Thus, respectfully following the above decisions in background of the facts of the assessee, we are of the opinion that

M/S. INDIAN SOCIETY FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Indian Society For Vs. Ito, Technical Education, Ward-1(2), C/O. M/S. Rra Taxindia, New Delhi D-28, South Extension, Parti-I, New Delhi – 110 049. Pan: Aaati2760D (Appellant) (Respondent)

234D of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to ea other.” 3. The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a trust registered under Section 12AA

ANKIT SHARMA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 234A, 2348, 234C and 234D is thus illegal and bad in law.” 3. In ITA No. 2124/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 75,00,000/- on account of unexplained loan

AIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. ANKIT SHARMA, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 234A, 2348, 234C and 234D is thus illegal and bad in law.” 3. In ITA No. 2124/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 75,00,000/- on account of unexplained loan

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. JAIPAL SINGH SHARMA TRUST, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

section 234A, 2348, 234C and 234D is thus illegal and bad in law.” 3. In ITA No. 2124/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue: “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 75,00,000/- on account of unexplained loan