ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

Charitable Trust reported in (1995) 216 ITR 697 (SC); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax V s. Programme for Community Organization reported in (2001) 248 ITR 1 (SC); (iv) Society of the Servants of the Holy Spirit Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) - ITA No. 975/Bang/2015 (ITAT Bangalore); and (v) DCIT Vs. Rashtrothana Parishat - ITA No. 896 & 897/Bang/2014 (ITAT Bangalore

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

Charitable Trust reported in (1995) 216 ITR 697 (SC); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax V s. Programme for Community Organization reported in (2001) 248 ITR 1 (SC); (iv) Society of the Servants of the Holy Spirit Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) - ITA No. 975/Bang/2015 (ITAT Bangalore); and (v) DCIT Vs. Rashtrothana Parishat - ITA No. 896 & 897/Bang/2014 (ITAT Bangalore

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

254 ITR 268 (Del). In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

254 ITR 268 (Del). In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

254 ITR 268 (Del). In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

254 ITR 268 (Del). In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

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

254 ITR 268 (Del). In that case, the Revenue filed appeal against the decision of the Tribunal holding that since payments made to parties specified under section 13(3) was reasonable and not excessive, there was no violation of section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Affirming the decision of the Tribunal as not given rise to any question

AKASH EDUCATION SOCIETY,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-3, NOIDA

In the result 1 – 3 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

254 that: ( SCC pp. 274-75, para 41) 6. Because the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact ignoring the ITAT decision that Transport 8& Hostel Facilities surplus cannot be considered as Business Income of the Society if the same was an integral part of its objects.(ITANO.4639/Del/2015 Addl.CIT, Range- 1, Ghaziabad Vs. Krishna Charitable Trust

AKASH EDUCATION SOCIETY,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO(E), WARD GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result 1 – 3 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

254 that: ( SCC pp. 274-75, para 41) 6. Because the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact ignoring the ITAT decision that Transport 8& Hostel Facilities surplus cannot be considered as Business Income of the Society if the same was an integral part of its objects.(ITANO.4639/Del/2015 Addl.CIT, Range- 1, Ghaziabad Vs. Krishna Charitable Trust

DEVKI DEVI FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DIT (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: -- Devki Devi Foundation, Vs Dit (Exemptions), Plot No.15, 3Rd Floor, 2, Press Enclave Road, Saket, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatd5283G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2011 Of The Dit (Exemptions), Delhi Withdrawing Registration Granted Earlier U/S 12A Of The It Act Since Inception.

charitable purpose’ as referred to in section 2(15) and for withdrawing registration under section 12A of the Act on that basis.” 14. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the time of hearing, filed the following additional grounds:- “Without prejudice: 4. That the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi [DIT(E)] erred on facts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INDIAN SOCIETY OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

charitable activity carried on by the trust only benefits a certain particular religious community or class or serves across the communities and for society at large [Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust c. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC)]. The section of community sought to be benefited must be either sufficiently defined or identifiable by a common quality of a public

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

254, the Supreme Court had observed that: “If the profits must necessarily feed a charitable purpose under the terms of the trust, the mere fact that the activities of the trust yield profit will not alter the charitable character of the trust. The test now is, more clearly than in the past, the genuineness of the purpose tested

MODEL VILLAGE TRUST ,DELHI vs. SH. PRAKASH DUBEY CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos. 3189 & 3190/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:- बनाम Model Village Trust, Sh. Prakash Dubey, E-89, 4Th Floor, Flat No.402, Vs. Cit Exemption, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aagtm6481K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 12AA is its activities. The applicant society was not deviating from its main objects to utilise the resources for propagation of education in Haryana. The commissioner, at no point of time pointed out that applicant society is not doing these activities. Thus, commissioner has not followed the proper guidelines given u/s 12AA. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion

MODEL VILLAGE TRUST,DELHI vs. SH. PRAKASH DUBEY CIT EXEMPTION, DELHI , DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos. 3189 & 3190/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:- बनाम Model Village Trust, Sh. Prakash Dubey, E-89, 4Th Floor, Flat No.402, Vs. Cit Exemption, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part-1, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aagtm6481K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 12AA is its activities. The applicant society was not deviating from its main objects to utilise the resources for propagation of education in Haryana. The commissioner, at no point of time pointed out that applicant society is not doing these activities. Thus, commissioner has not followed the proper guidelines given u/s 12AA. Therefore, the Tribunal was of the opinion

THE CORBETT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,UTTRAKHAND vs. CIT, HALDWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: Nil The Corbett Educational Society, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hariyawala Chowk, Kashipur, Khurana Complex, Nainital Road, Distt.- Udham Singh Nagar, Haldwani. Uttarakhand. (Pan: Aabtt2988H ) (Appellant) (Respondent)

254 ITR 268 (Del) 4. Orpat charitable trust versus CIT (2002) 256 ITR 690 (Guj) 5. Guru Govind Singh Education Society versus CIT (2009) 118 ITD 207 (ASR) 6. CIT versus Spring Dale education society (2011) 204 Taxmann 11 (P & H) 7. DIT versus JITO Channai chapterr (2012) 204 Taxmann 157 (Madras) 8. CIT versus Bharat Sewa Sansthan

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX-(EXEMPTION) vs. THE AJAY G. PIRAMAL FOUNDATION

The appeal is dismissed

254.” Thus there cannot be any doubt or debate, that the claim and submission could have been raised by the respondent assessee before the appellate authorities. In either way, the issue has been rightly decided in favour of the respondent-assessee. 2014:DHC:4111-DB ITA 188/2014 Page 8 of 13 12. The next issue which arises for consideration

M/S. PINK FLOWERS TRUST,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

charitable institution. 5. The Learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in treating the Appellant Trust as a Private Religious Trust to which Section 13(l)(b) of the Act applies at the time of assessment of income, whereas in our case the Trust is a Public Religious Trust and also that Section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable trust carrying on activities in the field of education. It is a part of Santosh Group, which is also engaged in the field of education in Medical, Dental, Para-medical and other courses. For AY 2007-08, assessee filed its return of income on 31st October, 2007 4. stating that it has excess of expenditure over income amounting