DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI vs. POLYPLEX CORPORATION LIMITED., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Dcit, Vs Polyplex Corporation Limited, Circle-20(1), 40, New Mandakini, Greater New Delhi Kailash, New Delhi-110092. Pan-Aaacp0278J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Date Of Hearing 04.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, 2021 (2) TMI 651- DELHI HIGH COURT, Dated February 12, 2021 Hence, in the view of above mentioned submissions and judicial pronouncements, the order of CIT(A) should be upheld.” 8. We have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ld.CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

ab-initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not appreciating the legal position that the assessment of a charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

ab-initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not appreciating the legal position that the assessment of a charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

ab-initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not appreciating the legal position that the assessment of a charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

ab-initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not appreciating the legal position that the assessment of a charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

ab-initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not appreciating the legal position that the assessment of a charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

ab-initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not appreciating the legal position that the assessment of a charitable trust is made under sections 11 to 13, which falls under Chapter III of the Act, where reference under section

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

ab-initio. (2) On a due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, NFAC/ld. CIT(A) should have quashed the reassessment order dated 19.12.2017, on the grounds that Accumulation of 15% was to be computed on the basis of gross receipts and not net income. (3) In any case, the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) has erred

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

ab-initio. (2) On a due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, NFAC/ld. CIT(A) should have quashed the reassessment order dated 19.12.2017, on the grounds that Accumulation of 15% was to be computed on the basis of gross receipts and not net income. (3) In any case, the NFAC/ld. CIT(A) has erred

SUNIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraadvantage India Vs. The Pr. C.I.T 101-102, Oriental House Central - 2 Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi New Delhi

ab-initio, illegal and without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed being unsustainable in the eyes of law. 6. It is the say of the ld AR that the order of grant/cancellation of registration should be passed by the CIT( E) only as the CIT(E) only has the jurisdiction over Trust cases and cited the Notification of CBDT

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

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

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

35,250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 8,13,89,000/- as against the addition of Rs.17

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

35,199/- was credited in Infrastructure Fund without crediting in Income & Expenditure account. AO held that the same may be credited to Income Expenditure account and expenditure on Infrastructure amounting Rs. 57,80,03,316/- was allowed. However, AO held that the same shall not be allowable for various reasons mentioned in the assessment order. In view of the above

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

35,199/- was credited in Infrastructure Fund without crediting in Income & Expenditure account. AO held that the same may be credited to Income Expenditure account and expenditure on Infrastructure amounting Rs. 57,80,03,316/- was allowed. However, AO held that the same shall not be allowable for various reasons mentioned in the assessment order. In view of the above

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

35,199/- was credited in Infrastructure Fund without crediting in Income & Expenditure account. AO held that the same may be credited to Income Expenditure account and expenditure on Infrastructure amounting Rs. 57,80,03,316/- was allowed. However, AO held that the same shall not be allowable for various reasons mentioned in the assessment order. In view of the above

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

35,250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 8,13,89,000/- as against the addition of Rs.17

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

35,536 were sold on 20.03.2013 for Rs. 1,65,42,307 declaring LTCG of Rs. 1,55,06,771 which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act. A search was conducted in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, who in his statement u/s 132(4) admitted that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries, managing and controlling

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

35,536 were sold on 20.03.2013 for Rs. 1,65,42,307 declaring LTCG of Rs. 1,55,06,771 which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act. A search was conducted in the case of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, who in his statement u/s 132(4) admitted that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries, managing and controlling