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

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

6. Per Contra, the Learned DR vehemently relied on the order of the Learned PCIT and stated that both the expressions ‘activities' and 'transactions' are to be given the same meaning and genuineness of the activities of the Assessee Society need to be viewed only from the transactions undertaken by it. Hence she argued that there is no difference between

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)

6. The assessee aggrieved with the assessment order preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee relying upon the order of the coordinate bench for A. Y. 2009-10 in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 387/Del/2013. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A) the revenue is in appeal

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. 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

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

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

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

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

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

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

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

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

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

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(5), In that case, the claim was first time made under Sec.80HHC before the CIT(A) and accordingly no infirmity was found by the Hon'ble Apex Court in grant of deduction u/s 80HHC. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ramco International, reported in 332 ITR 300, where the assessee claimed deduction u/s 801B

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

6. The ld. DR contends that the AO has correctly disallowed income from sponsorship and telecasting are in the nature of business and the activities of the Respondent Assessee do not qualify for charitable purposes. He further emphasized on the amendment brought in by Finance Act by insertion of proviso to section 2(15) w.e.f. 01/04/2009 in respect

CHILDREN WELFARE SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-2, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uschildren Welfare Trust Vs. Ito (Exemptions) 3-E, Park, Nit, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana-121001 Haryana Pan No.Aabtc6957B (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs. Ito (Exemptions) Children Welfare Society 3-E, Park, Nit, Faridabad Circle-2, Haryana-121001 Chandigarh Pan No.Aaaac0131F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv. Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca & Shri Mirza Baig, Ca Revenue By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [CIT(A)] dated 28.02.2020 which, in turn, arises from the assessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2015-16 in question. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under

CHILDREN WELFARE TRUST,FARIDABAD vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), FARIDABAD

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Uschildren Welfare Trust Vs. Ito (Exemptions) 3-E, Park, Nit, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana-121001 Haryana Pan No.Aabtc6957B (Appellant) (Respondent) Vs. Ito (Exemptions) Children Welfare Society 3-E, Park, Nit, Faridabad Circle-2, Haryana-121001 Chandigarh Pan No.Aaaac0131F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv. Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca & Shri Mirza Baig, Ca Revenue By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.10.2024

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad [CIT(A)] dated 28.02.2020 which, in turn, arises from the assessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2015-16 in question. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under