DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST Rospondônt Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukia, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EAS WAR, J.: These are seven appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST Rospondônt Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukia, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EAS WAR, J.: These are seven appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST Rospondônt Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukia, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EAS WAR, J.: These are seven appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST Rospondônt Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukia, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EAS WAR, J.: These are seven appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST ......Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Somnath Shukla, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J.: These are seven appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOFTWARE AND SERVICE COMPANIES (NASSCOM)

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

charitable purposes has to be exercised by the trust in writing before the expiry of the time allowed under Section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income, as provided in Explanation (iib) below Section 11(1) of the Act. In respect of all the years that are before us in which the question of application of income outside India

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

charitable purposes has to be exercised by the trust in writing before the expiry of the time allowed under Section 139(1) for furnishing the return of income, as provided in Explanation (iib) below Section 11(1) of the Act. In respect of all the years that are before us in which the question of application of income outside India

MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

The appeal is disposed of

Charitable Trust, has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning

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

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The appeal relates to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The following question has been posed: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the benefit under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating

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

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The appeal relates to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The following question has been posed: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the benefit under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating

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

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The appeal relates to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The following question has been posed: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the benefit under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating

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

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The appeal relates to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The following question has been posed: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the benefit under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating

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

260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The appeal relates to the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97. The following question has been posed: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in allowing the benefit under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without appreciating

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

CHARITABLE TRUST ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Shashi M. Kapila with Mr. R.R. Maurya and Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Advocates. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR R.V. EASWAR, J. 1. All the three appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 260A

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) assailing the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the „ITAT‟). The present appeal proposes substantial questions of law, questioning the correctness of the findings of ITAT in relation to the activities of the assessee in the context of eligibility

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) is directed against the order dated 7th October 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 2239/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2012-13. 2. The question urged by the Revenue is whether it could be said that the Assessee-Society is a charitable society established

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPT vs. THE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 260A of the Act, (hereafter “the revenue”) against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”). Facts and Contentions 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the rejection by the DGIT of its application grant of exemption for assessment years 2008-09 onwards, as a charitable organization. The assessee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with

CARE TODAY FUND,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Care Today Fund, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-26, First Floor, Exemption 1(3), Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-1100 01 Pan :Aaatc3762B (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable activities. The said agreement along with reply dated 26.12.2019 are at pages 59 to 61 of paper books. The assessee-trust has not paid any donation or grant without any specific utilization instructions to any trust or Institution. 8.11 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Hps Social Welfare Foundation (Delhi HC) reported