PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

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

J. M. : The assessee has questioned first appellate order on the following grounds : 1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts

M/S. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

Trust ( supra ) confirms the view that applicability of decisions is to be seen with respect to provisions for which, a decision was rendered. The decision upon was based on the redundancy of section 11 (4), if the prohibition u/s 13(1 )(bb) is extended to the fourth category of Charitable Objects i.e. any other object of general public; utility " Moreover

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

J) and therefore, the nature of these receipts in commercial and nature. 2.2 The reasons for the selection of the case under CASS is the turnover from services reported to the Service Tax Authorities amounting to RS.3,86,65,028/-. The assessee has also paid service tax on the fees etc received from the students making it a further strong

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Charitable Trust vs State of Haryana AIR [2003] SC 1648 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Hansraj Bhai [2001] 5 SCL 175, it was submitted that it is well-settled that in relation to the same subject matter, if different words/terminology of different import are used in the same statute then there is a presumption that they are not used

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Charitable Trust vs State of Haryana AIR [2003] SC 1648 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Hansraj Bhai [2001] 5 SCL 175, it was submitted that it is well-settled that in relation to the same subject matter, if different words/terminology of different import are used in the same statute then there is a presumption that they are not used

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ANIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

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

J. 1. The present judgment shall decide Letters Patents Appeal filed by Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre of Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) against Batra Hospital Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) to Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:30.05.2023 16:16:35 Signature Not Verified LPA 99/2018 Page 2

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Exemptions), Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Kripalu Bagh, Cgo-Ii, Vs Kankhal, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Haridwar. Ghaziabad. (Pan: Aaatd1114E) Appellant Respondent Department By: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rohti Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2019 O R D E R

J. To run the free educational centers and to facilitate the worthy poor helpless orphans, students by providing clothes, food, study material and lodging. K. To establish and run stables for the poor cows to save them from victimization and killings. L. To carry out researches or agni hotra and perform scientific yajnas in order to solve the serious problems

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

J. K. Trust (supra) the trustees were authorised to carry on business “with the help of the trust fund”. It has also been noticed by the Supreme Court that the sum of `1,00,000/- was given as security by the trustees under Exhibit „B‟ for the due performance of their obligations as managing agents. It was in the background

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

The appeal is disposed of

J 1. The Appellant, a Charitable Trust, has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the ‘Act’) impugning the order dated 3rd February, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No. 5681/DEL/2010. 2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue assailing

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA 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

J. (as he then was) observed as under: - But it is not an inflexible rule of construction that a proviso in a statute should always be read as a limitation upon the effect of the main enactment. Generally the natural preswnption isthat but for the proviso the enacung part of the section would have included the subject-matter

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA 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

J. (as he then was) observed as under: - But it is not an inflexible rule of construction that a proviso in a statute should always be read as a limitation upon the effect of the main enactment. Generally the natural preswnption isthat but for the proviso the enacung part of the section would have included the subject-matter

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

J. (as he then was) observed as under: - But it is not an inflexible rule of construction that a proviso in a statute should always be read as a limitation upon the effect of the main enactment. Generally the natural preswnption isthat but for the proviso the enacung part of the section would have included the subject-matter

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

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

J. (as he then was) observed as under: - But it is not an inflexible rule of construction that a proviso in a statute should always be read as a limitation upon the effect of the main enactment. Generally the natural preswnption isthat but for the proviso the enacung part of the section would have included the subject-matter

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

J. (as he then was) observed as under: - But it is not an inflexible rule of construction that a proviso in a statute should always be read as a limitation upon the effect of the main enactment. Generally the natural preswnption isthat but for the proviso the enacung part of the section would have included the subject-matter

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

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

J. (as he then was) observed as under: - But it is not an inflexible rule of construction that a proviso in a statute should always be read as a limitation upon the effect of the main enactment. Generally the natural preswnption isthat but for the proviso the enacung part of the section would have included the subject-matter

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

J.: These nine appeals are filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1998-99, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. They have been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. 2. The respondent-assessee is the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

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

J.: These nine appeals are filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 1998-99, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. They have been filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. 2. The respondent-assessee is the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

27. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that since elimination of competition from the Trust did not happen simultaneous with acquisition of Katha and Cutch business of the Trust, enhancement of lease rent, even to the extent it is attributable to elimination of competition from the Trust, would not constitute capital expenditure. In our view, this