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. 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

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

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

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)

4. On scrutiny,, the learned assessing officer asked assessee to explain as to why hostel receipt should not be treated as business income of the trust in absence of not maintaining separate books of accounts as per section 11 Delhi Cooperative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd Vs. ITO, (4A) of the income tax act. The assessee submitted that running of hostel

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

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

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 all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned

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

4. during the year under consideration except receiving the dividend income of Rs. 2,36,000/-. It was further submitted that it is settled law that only income from investments or deposits made in violation of section 11(5) of the Act are liable to be taxed and violation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act does not result

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)’].

4. India Trade Promotion Organization [2015] 53 Taxmann.com 404 (Delhi) 5. Confederation of Pharma Dealers Association [2022] 137 Taxmann.com 117 (Raipur-Trib.) 6. Dahisar Sports Foundation [2017] 87 Taxmann.com 313 (Mum-Trib.) 7. Further, the Ld. Counsel placed emphasis on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Indian Chamber of Commerce (supra) and in particular para

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)

4. On the issue of carry forward of excess expenditure he held as under:- “5.2 Carry forward of excess expenditure is not disputed by the Assessing Officer per se while taking note of response of the appellant filed vide letter 3/3/2015 to the SCN dated 27/02/2015. Also, the appellant's contention on this matter has been upheld

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

4 in the above table. The said amounts have been paid to M/s C-Cube Technologies Pvt. Ltd., CTO Sarvshiksha Institute Pvt. Ltd., Sirohi Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Endeceed Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The explanation of the appellant to justify the expenditure is that the services rendered by these entities involved conversion of metadata of sound recordings from physical

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

4 in the above table. The said amounts have been paid to M/s C-Cube Technologies Pvt. Ltd., CTO Sarvshiksha Institute Pvt. Ltd., Sirohi Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Endeceed Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The explanation of the appellant to justify the expenditure is that the services rendered by these entities involved conversion of metadata of sound recordings from physical

DEPUTY 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

4 in the above table. The said amounts have been paid to M/s C-Cube Technologies Pvt. Ltd., CTO Sarvshiksha Institute Pvt. Ltd., Sirohi Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Endeceed Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The explanation of the appellant to justify the expenditure is that the services rendered by these entities involved conversion of metadata of sound recordings from physical

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

4 in the above table. The said amounts have been paid to M/s C-Cube Technologies Pvt. Ltd., CTO Sarvshiksha Institute Pvt. Ltd., Sirohi Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and Endeceed Global Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The explanation of the appellant to justify the expenditure is that the services rendered by these entities involved conversion of metadata of sound recordings from physical