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

Trust has not given any evidence to show that poor/ EWS category of students were given education. In this regard, he submitted that ‘education’ per se is treated as charitable under section 2(15) and there is no law that the education was must imparted to the poor only what is required is education should be given to a section

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

Trust has not given any evidence to show that poor/ EWS category of students were given education. In this regard, he submitted that ‘education’ per se is treated as charitable under section 2(15) and there is no law that the education was must imparted to the poor only what is required is education should be given to a section

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

Trust has not given any evidence to show that poor/ EWS category of students were given education. In this regard, he submitted that ‘education’ per se is treated as charitable under section 2(15) and there is no law that the education was must imparted to the poor only what is required is education should be given to a section

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

Trust has not given any evidence to show that poor/ EWS category of students were given education. In this regard, he submitted that ‘education’ per se is treated as charitable under section 2(15) and there is no law that the education was must imparted to the poor only what is required is education should be given to a section

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

Trust has not given any evidence to show that poor/ EWS category of students were given education. In this regard, he submitted that ‘education’ per se is treated as charitable under section 2(15) and there is no law that the education was must imparted to the poor only what is required is education should be given to a section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - EXEMPTION vs. ASSOCIATION OF THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATORS

The appeal is dismissed with no orders

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

260 and East India Industries ( Madras) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611. But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI vs. SANTOSH TRUST, NEW DELHI

section 115BBE of the Act.”\n7.\nThe assessee further filed the following submissions dated\n23.09.2022 before the Ld. CIT(A): -\n“In continuation of the summarized submissions and also in reply to the\nspecific queries raised on following issues, the submission of the appellant is as\nunder:\n1. Comparative chart of gross receipts activity wise, as has already been\nsubmitted

DDIT (E), DELHI vs. M/S. ALL INDIA FOOTBALL FEDERATION, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

260 and East India Industries ( Madras)Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 611(SC). But if the primary or dominant purpose of a trust or institution is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust or institution from being

M/S. LORD KRISHNA CHARITABLE TRUST,ROHTAK vs. CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee-trust is allowed

Bench: : Shri C.M. Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

260 ITR (AT) 118 (Amr.) (iv) Sanjeevamma Hanumanthe Gowda Charitable Trust vs. DIT, 285 ITR 327 (Karn.) 4 ITA No.6799/Del./2013 (v). St. Don Bosco Educational Society v. CIT 90 ITD 477 (Luck) and (v). Aggarwal Mitra Mandal Trust v. DIT, 106 ITD 531 (Del.) It was further submitted that there is no statutory condition that the Trust could

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 13(1), the trust will lose the exemption in respect of entire income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 3,82,85,475/- to the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee had claimed the amount incurred

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 13(1), the trust will lose the exemption in respect of entire income. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 3,82,85,475/- to the assessee ignoring the fact that the assessee had claimed the amount incurred

SALWAN EDUCATION TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, EXMP 2(1), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Salwan Education Trust, Dcit, Salwan Schools Campus, Pt Exemption 2(1), Girdhari Lal Salwan Marg, Vs Delhi, Rajinder Nagar, 24Th Floor, Civic Centre, New Delhi-110060, New Delhi-110002. Pan- Aacts9741A Assessee Revenue

section u/s 11(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2.3. The AO noted that the gross receipts of the assessee trust excluding the amount of Rs. 3,94,60,633/- (which was considered separately by him) was Rs. 107,27,83, 171/-. The AO further noted that the assessee trust had made revenue ITA No.- 5275/Del/2024 Salwan Educa"on Trust

LAKSHYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11 are applicable in respect of income derived from the property held for charitable purposes. Whereas, in the facts of the case it has been found that these unexplained sums in the shape of unexplained unsecured loans though are income of the appellant but the same are not in the nature „income derived‟ from the property held for charitable

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

260 (SC), the Supreme Court by a judgement dated 4th April 1996, dealt with the question of political parties not filing returns of income for several years thereby violating the mandatory requirement of Section 139(4B) of the Act. The summary of the main conclusions of the Supreme Court was as under: (i) Political parties were not above

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

260 (SC), the Supreme Court by a judgement dated 4th April 1996, dealt with the question of political parties not filing returns of income for several years thereby violating the mandatory requirement of Section 139(4B) of the Act. The summary of the main conclusions of the Supreme Court was as under: (i) Political parties were not above

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

260 (SC), the Supreme Court by a judgement dated 4th April 1996, dealt with the question of political parties not filing returns of income for several years thereby violating the mandatory requirement of Section 139(4B) of the Act. The summary of the main conclusions of the Supreme Court was as under: (i) Political parties were not above

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SHREE SHIV VANKESHAWAR EDUCATIONAL & SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST, MEERUT

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyacit, Vs. Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Circle-2, Educational & Social Meerut Welfare Trust, A-217, Defence Colony, Meerut Pan: Aahts6246H (Appellant) (Respondent)

260 (Agra) which has been affirmed by the honourable Allahbad High Court in ITA number 31 of 2013. 6. The learned authorised representative vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT – A. ACIT Vs Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust, 7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly the assessee

DELHI BUREAU OF TEXT BOOKS vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(E)

The appeals are allowed but, in the circumstances, with no orders as to costs

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) are directed against the common impugned order dated 23rd April 2015 passed by the ITA Nos. 807, 810, 811, & 812/2015 Page 3 of 19 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in ITA Nos. 2362/Del/2010, 2363/Del/2010, 3796/Del/2011 and 56/Del/2013 for the Assessment Years