DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 8,13,89,000/- as against

SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 8,13,89,000/- as against

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 8,13,89,000/- as against

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 8,13,89,000/- as against

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

charitable object, the very jurisdictional foundation for invoking Clause (a) of Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act fails. The only allegation stated by the Learned PCIT in his order is that the Assessee Society had carried out certain financial transactions which would fall in the category of an 'irregularity' as it extends benefit to certain related parties referred

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)

250 (Punj. & Har.); Maa Saraswati Educational Trust v. UOI [2010] 194 taxman 84 (H.P) ; DIT (Exemption) v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust ITA(L) No. 2990/2009 (Bom) etc. in the case of Sanjeevamma Hanumantha Gowda Charitable (supra) the predominant activity undertaken by the assessee was letting out of marriage halls on purely commercial basis and not in furtherance

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

250 (Punj. & Har.); Maa Saraswati Educational Trust v. UOI [2010] 194 taxman 84 (H.P) ; DIT (Exemption) v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust ITA(L) No. 2990/2009 (Bom) etc. in the case of Sanjeevamma Hanumantha Gowda Charitable (supra) the predominant activity undertaken by the assessee was letting out of marriage halls on purely commercial basis and not in furtherance

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) being Appeal No.80/2015- 16/Noida (A.Y.2012-13) & 209/2015-16/Noida (A.Y. 2010-11). 2. Heard and perused the record. As directed by Bench on 08.02.2023, assessee has filed following revised grounds: 1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law as well as on the facts of the case

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

250 of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response thereto the assessee furnished written submissions of evidences/details vide letter dated 19.01.2021. On consideration thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee 2 is a charitable institution eligible for exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) or under section 11/12 of the Act. The observations and findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 8,13,89,000/- as against the addition of Rs.17

DDIT (E), DELHI vs. M/S. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

250. 9. The ld. AR submitted that the income from sponsorship and grant of commercial rights/telecasting rights received by the appellant are in order to ensure the enforcement of its object, of promotion of game of football for which appellant society was formed and no profit motive was involved. 10. We have perused the records, the paper book filed

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)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of Order dated 27.12.2019 of the Learned Assessing Officer/Income Tax 2 ITA No. 5734/Del.2024 Officer, Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. AO”) under Sections 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. INDIAN BROADCASTING FOUNDATION

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. 37. The term „investment‟ has been defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (11th edition, 2004), as “a thing worth buying because it may be profitable or useful in the future”. The Black's Law Dictionary defines „investment‟ as “an expenditure to acquire property or other assets in order to produce revenue. The placing