SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

ITO (E), WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SWAMI SATYANAND DHARMARTH TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

264 ITR 110 (Bom) 2003. vi. DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust, 197 Taxman 170 (Delhi) 2011 4.2.3 In the case of DIT vs. Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High court have held as under: "8. It would be fruitful to refer to the discussions contained in Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)'s case (supra

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

264 ITR 110). A distinction was sought to be made between computation in terms of Section 2(45) defining 'total income’, and computation of 'income’ in terms of section 11 of the Act. Referring to the scheme of section 11, he would contend that the provisions thereof constituted a complete code which took into account the application of depreciation

M/S. MANJIT KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Break up of application of Rs. 79,10,968/- is as under: I. Administrative Expenses Rs. 3,95,692/- ii. Interest & Bank Charges Rs. 33,94,2801- III. Depreciation Rs. 36,55,891/- IV. Blood Donation camp

M/S. MANJEET KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Break up of application of Rs. 79,10,968/- is as under: I. Administrative Expenses Rs. 3,95,692/- ii. Interest & Bank Charges Rs. 33,94,2801- III. Depreciation Rs. 36,55,891/- IV. Blood Donation camp

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NAV NIRMAN SEWA SAMITI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing]

sections, there is no provision for adjustment of brought forward loss or carry forward of loss of current year to be adjusted against the income of subsequent year. However, various Hon'ble High Court have taken a view that income is to be computed in accordance with commercial principles and as such adjustment of brought forward loss/deficit and carry forward

DCIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. DR. R.L. KHERA CHARITABLE TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Dr. R.L. Khera Charitable Trust Circle 1(1) Pandav Nagar, Naraina Road New Delhi Near Shadipur Depot, New Delhi Pan : Aaatd 8903 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

264 ITR 110 (Bom.)]; (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Siddaramanna Charities Trust [96 ITR 275 (Mys); and (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Matriseva Trust [242 ITR 20 (Mad.)]. 10 8. It would be fruitful to refer to the discussions contained in Institute of Banking (supra), Per. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, which is advanced before

ACIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2 (1), NEW DELHI vs. SUBROS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

trust would not be entitled to claim exemption in respect of such reimbursement under section 11(1)(a) if the contention advanced by the revenue was accepted. The construction which leads to such an anomaly has got to be avoided. There is nothing in the language of section 11(1)(a) to indicate that the expenditure incurred in the earlier

SHRI RAM SHARNAM SABHA REGD.,PANIPAT vs. ITO(E), AMBALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Ito(E), 588, Model Town, Panipat, Vs. Ambala, Room No. 208, 2Nd Floor, Bc Haryana - 122001 Bazar, Ambala Cantt. (Pan: Aaats4962K) Haryana – 122001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

264 ITR 110 (Bom.); (ii) Siddaramanna Charities Trust v, CIT [1974] 96 ITR 275 (Mys.); and iii) CIT v. Matriseva Trust [2000] 242 ITR 20 (Mad.); 8. It would be fruitful to refer to the discussions contained in Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)'s case (supra ), Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, which is advanced before

SHRI RAM SHARNAM SABHA REGD.,PANIPAT vs. ITO(E), AMBALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Shri Ram Sharnam Sabha Regd., Vs Ito(E), 588, Model Town, Panipat, Ambala, Haryana-122001. Haryana. Pan-Aaats4962K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shailendra Bajaj, Ca & Shri R.R.Maurya, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal Dated 24.09.2019. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

264 ITR 110 (Bom.); (ii) Siddaramanna Charities Trust v, CIT [1974] 96 ITR 275 (Mys.); and iii) CIT v. Matriseva Trust [2000] 242 ITR 20 (Mad.); 8. It would be fruitful to refer to the discussions contained in Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)'s case (supra ), Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, which is advanced before

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. CITY EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE SOCIETY, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

section 12AA of the Income Tax Act. I have noticed that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Institute of Banking 264 ITR 110 had held that the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in directing the AO to allow depreciation of the asset, the cost of which had been fully allowed as application of income

ACIT (E), CIRCLE- 2(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANSKRITI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Tarvinder Singh Kapoor & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

264 ITR 110 (Bom.) in which the ratio as expounded in the case of Vishwa Jagriti Mission (supra) was accepted and affirmed, were noticed. Referring to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Lissie Medical Institutions (supra) it was observed:- 15. “Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section

CALCOM INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshcalcom Institute Of Vs. Cit(Exemption), Management Development & New Delhi Training, C-41, Defence Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatc0685K Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09/07/2024

264/- paid by the assessee trustee on behalf of the company is in violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c) read with sections 13(2) and 13(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Calcom Institute of Management Development and Training Further, M/s Calcom Vision Limited has also claimed the amount payable to the assessee trust as expenses

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S INDRAPRASTHA CANCER SOCIETY

trust beyond 15% of income from such property. If there is a violation of the said provision, proportionate income is deemed to be taxable and not exempt under Section 11(1). The language of the Section is peculiar and proceeds on its own wording. This aspect has been highlighted and pointed out in the judgment of Commissioner of Income

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M.J. CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 11(4) of the Income-tax Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Institute of Banking reported In 264 ITR page 110 an 7 ITA No.4165/Del./2013 argument was raised before the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court by the revenue that in the case of a charitable trust