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

section 13(1)(c) on account of payment of remuneration as scholarship to Mrs. Aarti Rai. 24. Regarding Assessing Officer’s observation that during the year under consideration the net profit as per income expenditure account was Rs.4,75,83,039 and gross income of Rs.9,82,41,290/-, meaning thereby that net profit was 48.43% of the gross income

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

section 13(1)(c) on account of payment of remuneration as scholarship to Mrs. Aarti Rai. 24. Regarding Assessing Officer’s observation that during the year under consideration the net profit as per income expenditure account was Rs.4,75,83,039 and gross income of Rs.9,82,41,290/-, meaning thereby that net profit was 48.43% of the gross income

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

section 13(1)(c) on account of payment of remuneration as scholarship to Mrs. Aarti Rai. 24. Regarding Assessing Officer’s observation that during the year under consideration the net profit as per income expenditure account was Rs.4,75,83,039 and gross income of Rs.9,82,41,290/-, meaning thereby that net profit was 48.43% of the gross income

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

section 13(1)(c) on account of payment of remuneration as scholarship to Mrs. Aarti Rai. 24. Regarding Assessing Officer’s observation that during the year under consideration the net profit as per income expenditure account was Rs.4,75,83,039 and gross income of Rs.9,82,41,290/-, meaning thereby that net profit was 48.43% of the gross income

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 or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year- (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983, otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 ; or (ii) any funds

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, 2021 (2) TMI 651- DELHI HIGH COURT, Dated February 12, 2021 Hence, in the view of above mentioned submissions and judicial pronouncements, the order of CIT(A) should be upheld.” 8. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ld.CIT

HARISH CHAND RAM KALI CHARITABLE TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee partly

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri Prashant Maharishiharish Chand Ram Kali Vs. The Addl Commissioner Of Charitable Trust Income Tax Kf-91, Kavi Nagar Range-1 Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Up Up Pan: Aath3018B (Appellant) (Respondent)

1, Ghaziabad (The Learned AO) passed u/s 147 read with section 143 (3) of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 28/2/2014, wherein the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- a. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT – A erred both

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, DELHI vs. M/S BIO-RAD LABORATORIES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

1 Year B.Ed. program for those who have completed the equivalent of 4 Year multidisciplinary Bachelor's Degrees or who have obtained a Master's degree in a specialty and wish to become a subject teacher in that specialty.  As per provision of Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 it shall be the duty of the Council to take

FEDERATION OF EUROPEAN BUSINESS IN INDIA,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrafederation Of European Commissioner Of Income Business In India, Tax (Exemption), Aiwan-E-Ghalib Complex, Vs. E-2, Civic Centre, Mata Sundari Lane, Minto Road, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110002 Pan: Aafcf5934N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amol Sinha, Advocate Sh. Ankit Kumar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 15/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), New Delhi [‘Cit(E)’].

253 page 82. The Hon’ble Court has held as under: “A.3. Generally, the charging of any amount towards consideration for such an activity (advancing general public utility), which is on cost-basis or nominally above cost, cannot be considered to be trade, commerce or business or any services in relation thereto, it is only when the charges are markedly

SAMSUNG C AND T CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE 22(2) DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

C AND T Vs. DCIT, CORPORATION INDIA PVT. Circle-22(2), LTD., Delhi 19th Floor, Epitome, Building No.5, Tower A, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon PAN :AARCS9192B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, CA Department by Sh. Ashwini S., Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.05.2024 Date of pronouncement 30.05.2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT This is an appeal

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) VS ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal - Assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

1. Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) VS ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 134 (SC) Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, appeal to (Condonation of delay) -Assessee sought condonation of delay of 1754 days in filing appeals against order, dated 29-12-2003, passed by Tribunal - Assessee pleaded that it had no knowledge about passing of Tribunal's order

GAWAR FOUNDATION,HARYANA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), ROHTAK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Gawar Foundation, Vs. Ito(Exemption), Through S. K. Jain, Advocate, Rohtak 696/8, Ganga Bagh, Hansi, Haryana Pan: Aactg1482C (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) That on the facts, in the circumstances of the case and under law Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deleting disallowance made by Learned Assessing Officer under S. 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 37,800/- because the appellant does not fall within the preview of this section. 2) That

SHREE DEWAN SHIKSHA SAMITI,JIND vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: us. Considering the fact that the assessee has been continuously absent, we find it appropriate to hear the Ld. Departmental Representative and decide the Appeal on verifying the material available on record.

C. R. Building, 5th Floor, Nirwana, Jind Vs. Sector-17E, Haryana Chandigarh PAN-AALAS5556R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Dharm Veer Singh CIT DR Date of Hearing 30/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S.JM: The assessee filed the present Appeal by challenging the order dated 25/09/2019 passed by Office of the Commissioner of Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

1) (b) Pioneer Channel Factory Pvt Ltd for a deal value of Rs 3,87,20,000/- vide agreement dated 28.04.2014 (copy enclosed at Page 508 to 515 P/B Vol.1) 134. In this regard, it has been explained that commission 5% on the deal of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (between SCIPL and Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd & commission