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

253,851 82.69% 2008-09 25. Thus, he submitted that both the authorities have failed to consider the acquisition of fixed assets and another capital expenditure which were shown in the statement of utilisation filed along with return of income as application of income for ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 22 charitable purposes. He submitted that

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

253,851 82.69% 2008-09 25. Thus, he submitted that both the authorities have failed to consider the acquisition of fixed assets and another capital expenditure which were shown in the statement of utilisation filed along with return of income as application of income for ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 22 charitable purposes. He submitted that

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

253,851 82.69% 2008-09 25. Thus, he submitted that both the authorities have failed to consider the acquisition of fixed assets and another capital expenditure which were shown in the statement of utilisation filed along with return of income as application of income for ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 22 charitable purposes. He submitted that

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

253,851 82.69% 2008-09 25. Thus, he submitted that both the authorities have failed to consider the acquisition of fixed assets and another capital expenditure which were shown in the statement of utilisation filed along with return of income as application of income for ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 22 charitable purposes. He submitted that

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

Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of Teacher Education.  There are approximately 430 applications for various Teacher Education Programmes, other than Diploma level courses, pending at different stages in the RCs.  NEP 2020 has brought

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)

3. Facts shows from the orders of lower authorities that Memorandum the society, assessee was established with the aim to impart education and other charitable activities covered under section 2 (15) of The Income Tax Act. The trust is imparting education for bachelor degree in the field of engineering, pharmacy, business administration and hotel management etc. and running engineering

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. ANGOORI DEVI EDUCATIONAL & CURTURAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, appeal filed by the ld AO is dismissed

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit(E), Vs. Smt. Angoori Devi Circle-2(1), Educational & Cultural New Delhi Society, 88A, Pocket-1, Mayor Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaata1505E (Appellant) (Respondent)

3) of section 74.AA are not applicable in the instant case. Thus, based on the arguments by the appellate, the carry forward is allowable.” 5. Thus on both the counts he allowed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the Id AO has preferred this appeal. 6. The first ground of appeal is relating to allowing the claim of carry forward

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Charitable Vs. ACIT, Trust, Circle-Panipat C/o- M/s. Sohan Lal Veer Bhan, Shop no. 50, New Wool Market, Panipat (Haryana) PAN :AAATB9939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate Sh. V. Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 27.07.2022 ORDER Captioned appeals by the same assessee arise

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Charitable Vs. ACIT, Trust, Circle-Panipat C/o- M/s. Sohan Lal Veer Bhan, Shop no. 50, New Wool Market, Panipat (Haryana) PAN :AAATB9939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate Sh. V. Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 27.07.2022 ORDER Captioned appeals by the same assessee arise

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Charitable Vs. ACIT, Trust, Circle-Panipat C/o- M/s. Sohan Lal Veer Bhan, Shop no. 50, New Wool Market, Panipat (Haryana) PAN :AAATB9939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate Sh. V. Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 27.07.2022 ORDER Captioned appeals by the same assessee arise

BRIJESH CHARITABLE TRUST,PANIPAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95 With Assessment Year: 1993-94 With Assessment Year: 1994-95

Charitable Vs. ACIT, Trust, Circle-Panipat C/o- M/s. Sohan Lal Veer Bhan, Shop no. 50, New Wool Market, Panipat (Haryana) PAN :AAATB9939P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate Sh. V. Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 30.05.2022 Date of pronouncement 27.07.2022 ORDER Captioned appeals by the same assessee arise

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

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. THE TIMES CENTRE FOR MEDIA AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the department stands dismissed

Bench: Sh. Pramod Kumar & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. : 2010-11 Ito (E) The Times Centre For Ward-2(3) Media & Management Studies Vs. New Delhi 10, Daryaganj Pan : Aaact3554H

3. The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the findings of the AO and argued that the Ld. CIT (A) had erred in allowing the benefit of exemption to the assessee because the assessee had violated the mandate of section 13(1) read with section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. during the year under consideration except

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

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 @ 5% on the deal aggregating to Rs 3,87,20,000/- (between SCIPL with Pioneer

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

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 @ 5% on the deal aggregating to Rs 3,87,20,000/- (between SCIPL with Pioneer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 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

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 @ 5% on the deal aggregating to Rs 3,87,20,000/- (between SCIPL with Pioneer

DEPUTY 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

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 @ 5% on the deal aggregating to Rs 3,87,20,000/- (between SCIPL with Pioneer

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

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 @ 5% on the deal aggregating to Rs 3,87,20,000/- (between SCIPL with Pioneer