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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AO to prove that the particular item is undisclosed income. Admittedly, no other evidence is recovered during the course of search to prove that in fact any payment of Rs. 30 crores outside the books of account has been made

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AO to prove that the particular item is undisclosed income. Admittedly, no other evidence is recovered during the course of search to prove that in fact any payment of Rs. 30 crores outside the books of account has been made

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AO to prove that the particular item is undisclosed income. Admittedly, no other evidence is recovered during the course of search to prove that in fact any payment of Rs. 30 crores outside the books of account has been made

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AO to prove that the particular item is undisclosed income. Admittedly, no other evidence is recovered during the course of search to prove that in fact any payment of Rs. 30 crores outside the books of account has been made

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

Trust Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:30.05.2023 16:16:35 Signature Not Verified LPA 99/2018 Page 32 Employees Union with effect from 05.09.1991 and Batra Hospital Employees Union with effect from 30.05.2001 and as such these unions are different entities. These arguments were also rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge in impugned judgment. 15. Regarding issue

GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6054/Del./2018 : Asstt. Year : Gian Sagar Educational & Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Charitable Trust, Flat No. 509, Tax, Central Circle-27, 5Th Floor, Indraprakash Building, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5827B Assessee By : Sh. Amol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2020

Charitable Trust ready reference, the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is reproduced below: “2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contends that charge was framed against the petitioners on 04.06.2012 for having allegedly committed the offence under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 7, 8, 12 & 13 (2) read with Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

trust vis a vis subject\ndonations made to recipient \"registered\" charitable organizations.\n9. ON DEMURRER TOTAL LACK OF SCN INVALIDAT THE IMPUGNED\nASST: As evident from cursory look to impugned asst order dated 30.12.2018\npassed u/s 143(3) merely after notice u/s 142 11.10.2018 & 15.12.2018\nimpugned Asstt. is framed without any SCN (show cause notice) much less valid\nSCN being

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

trust registered with the stated object of\nimparting education is, in reality, carrying on activities primarily in the\nnature of relief to the poor or other charitable purposes unrelated to\neducation, the registration may be liable to be withdrawn. In the instant\ncase before us, the activities carried out by the Assessee Society of\nimparting education is not even doubted

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity is there

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

charitable purpose u/s 2 (15) talks about the advancement of any other object of general public utility. The aforesaid predominant objects and the vision make it clear that the objects of the appellant are to provide 'medical relief 'impart education' to the society at large and 'relief to the poor' hence the proviso to section 2 (15) does not apply

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:

36-48). Please note that the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning & Development Act has been adopted by the State of Uttaranchal vide notification dated November 2002 (ANNEXURE D; Page 49-50). 5. The objects of the Authority are contained in Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 is reproduced as under: "7. Objects of the Authority - The objects of the Authority

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

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

Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. We have already held that the income of the trust available for application to charitable

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

Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. We have already held that the income of the trust available for application to charitable

SUNSHINE EDUCATIONAL & DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla

36,008/- Add : Excess interest cost claimed for hostel building as discussed above Rs.27,66,890/- Lease rent disallowed as discussed above Rs. 3,71,212/- Rs.15,02,094/- As calculated u/s 11(4A) Rs.15,02,094/-” 4. However, on other receipts, he has allowed exemption u/s 11(1) because, according to him, the same was in the nature

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

The appeal is disposed of

Section 12A of the Act would not prevent or in any manner impede the AO from conducting this exercise. 32. The only controversy that remains to be addressed is whether the AO and the Tribunal were justified in holding that the Assessee had applied its income for purposes other than its objects. 2015:DHC:5917-DB ITA 141/2013 Page

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 11 to assessee society has held that, since imparting of education is a matter of pure charity, therefore, the educational institution is not permitted to receive or recover the cost of charity from its beneficiary by way of fees, i.e., charging of fees itself would amount uncharitable activity. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition at all, because

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)

Charitable Trust, Circle-2, Meerut Railway Road, Meerut PAN: AABTS7321M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, Adv Revenue by: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 02/05/2017 Date of pronouncement 23/05/2017 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. ITA No. 4622/Del/2012 is filed by the revenue against the order of ld CIT(A), Meerut

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 Vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) (Delhi), (2008) 297 ITR 66, the assessing officer took the view that there was a violation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3)(e). These findings were not accepted either by the CIT (Appeals) who decided the appeal for the assessment year