ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

b) which is against granting of advance to the contractor for the construction of the institute building was considered by the Assessing Officer as application of the funds in violation of section 11(5) of the Act. 21. The ld Assessing Officer has dealt with this issue vide page No. 8 to 13 as under:- “Construction of Building Assessee

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

271(B) of the Act were also initiated. 6.8 In the meantime, on 30th March, 1999, the Assessee filed an application in the prescribed form with DGIT(E) seeking approval under 2015:DHC:8430-DB ITA 705/2008, 924/2009 & W.P.(C) 3797/2011 Page 8 of 71 Section 10(23C)(vi) & (via) for the year 1998-99. 6.9 Aggrieved by the assessment

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

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

271(1)(c) have been separately initiated”. Appeal before the CIT (A) 32. The INC then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’]. The appeal was filed on 4th November 1997 along an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). In this application, it was stated that the dates for compliance

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

271(1)(c) have been separately initiated”. Appeal before the CIT (A) 32. The INC then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’]. The appeal was filed on 4th November 1997 along an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). In this application, it was stated that the dates for compliance

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

271(1)(c) have been separately initiated”. Appeal before the CIT (A) 32. The INC then filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘CIT (A)’]. The appeal was filed on 4th November 1997 along an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’). In this application, it was stated that the dates for compliance

ITO (E), DELHI vs. SUVASINI CHARITABLE TRUST,, DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 4330/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer(E), Vs Suvasini Charitable Trust, Trust Ward-Ii, Swaminarayan Akshardham Delhi Mandir, Nh-24, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafts6497L Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

271 " Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (ITAT Chandigarh) 7 Suvasini Charitable Trust " Small Medium Exporter Vs DIT(E) Delhi (ITAT Delhi) " Sri Sathya Sai Nigamagamam Trust, in ITA No.247/Hyd/2009 (ITAT Hyderabad) 6. The AO observed that the assessee was carrying on business by way of running of a restaurant with the object of making profit and the profit motive

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

b) That the Appellant could not charge/ recover any fee from the students in case the Appellant is to carry out a charitable activity u/s 2(15) of the Act of providing education to students, (para 51 to 54). c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

b) That the Appellant could not charge/ recover any fee from the students in case the Appellant is to carry out a charitable activity u/s 2(15) of the Act of providing education to students, (para 51 to 54). c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

b) That the Appellant could not charge/ recover any fee from the students in case the Appellant is to carry out a charitable activity u/s 2(15) of the Act of providing education to students, (para 51 to 54). c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

b) That the Appellant could not charge/ recover any fee from the students in case the Appellant is to carry out a charitable activity u/s 2(15) of the Act of providing education to students, (para 51 to 54). c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

b) That the Appellant could not charge/ recover any fee from the students in case the Appellant is to carry out a charitable activity u/s 2(15) of the Act of providing education to students, (para 51 to 54). c) That the learned CIT (A) has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Five judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

INSTITUTE OF HAEMATOLOGY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), WARD- 1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 453/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Institute Of Haematology, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 11/6-B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Ward-1(2), Road, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati4626P Assessee By : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.08.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Of Rs.68,598/- Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

Charitable or religious trusts or institutions (copy enclosed PB 1 to 12). In annexure II of the Audit report with the head Application or use of income or property for the benefit 3 Institute of Haematology of persons referred to in section 13(3), the Auditor has mentioned the following facts (PB 10). a) A sum of Rs.16

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S TRISHUL COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S PASUPATI NATH COMMR. P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SWASTIK COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S MANSAROVER COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SOVERIGN COMMERCIAL P. LTD

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S SWASTIK COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S PASUPATI NATH COMMR. P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

Charitable Trust (DCT) (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B