JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , C.R. BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

Trust [1992]\n195 ITR 825/65 Taxman 273 (Cal.) as well as in the case of CIT v.\nSankalp Welfare Society [2008] 303 ITR 64 (Punj. & Har.). The\naudit report can be furnished before completing the assessment. [Para\n9]\nIn the instant case, the Assessing Officer had not asked for any\ninformation before denying the exemption for which the assessee

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Trust [1992]\n195 ITR 825/65 Taxman 273 (Cal.) as well as in the case of CIT v.\nSankalp Welfare Society [2008] 303 ITR 64 (Punj. & Har.). The\naudit report can be furnished before completing the assessment. [Para\n9]\nIn the instant case, the Assessing Officer had not asked for any\ninformation before denying the exemption for which the assessee

REC LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT-10 (OSD), DELHI, NEW DELHI

Trust [1992]\n195 ITR 825/65 Taxman 273 (Cal.) as well as in the case of CIT v.\nSankalp Welfare Society [2008] 303 ITR 64 (Punj. & Har.). The\naudit report can be furnished before completing the assessment. [Para\n9]\nIn the instant case, the Assessing Officer had not asked for any\ninformation before denying the exemption for which the assessee

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , CR BUILDING ITO vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

Trust [1992]\n195 ITR 825/65 Taxman 273 (Cal.) as well as in the case of CIT v.\nSankalp Welfare Society [2008] 303 ITR 64 (Punj. & Har.). The\naudit report can be furnished before completing the assessment. [Para\n9]\nIn the instant case, the Assessing Officer had not asked for any\ninformation before denying the exemption for which the assessee

LAKHMI CHAND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT CENTRAL 3, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms.Madhumita Roylakhmi Chand Vs. Principal Commissioner Charitable Society, Of Income Tax, Central-3 Elephanta Lane, Behind Room No. 325, 3Rd Floor, Sector-10/6 Market, New Income Tax Building, E-3 Golak Dham, Sector-10, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Dwarka, Extension, New Delhi - 110075 New Delhi - 110055

1) cannot be said to be case of application for objects of the trust. Gr. 3.1. Reference made of provisions of sec 12AA without appreciating that said section is not applicable wef. 01.04.2021 (Pg 19-20)  Reference to sec 12AA has only been made since the registration granted earlier was governed by this section. Thus, reference to this section

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)

36) SCL 525 (Andhra Pradesh), it was submitted that where different words/terminology has been used in different sections having different meanings then they necessarily have to be given different meanings. Accordingly, it was his submission that where different expressions have been used in different sections of the Statute they should be given a different meaning. Thus it was submitted that

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)

36) SCL 525 (Andhra Pradesh), it was submitted that where different words/terminology has been used in different sections having different meanings then they necessarily have to be given different meanings. Accordingly, it was his submission that where different expressions have been used in different sections of the Statute they should be given a different meaning. Thus it was submitted that

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

charitable purposes. The substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of the assessee in so far as the payment of taxes under the VDIS is concerned and in favour of the Revenue so far as the expenditure incurred outside India (Germany) is concerned. 32. The next question which arises is regarding the applicability of Section

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

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

charitable purposes. The substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of the assessee in so far as the payment of taxes under the VDIS is concerned and in favour of the Revenue so far as the expenditure incurred outside India (Germany) is concerned. 32. The next question which arises is regarding the applicability of Section

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act at his residence. Those incriminating documents are written

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act at his residence. Those incriminating documents are written

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

1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act at his residence. Those incriminating documents are written

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act at his residence. Those incriminating documents are written

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act at his residence. Those incriminating documents are written

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

1) of section 132-A, had been found in the possession or control of that person in the course of a search under section 132.” 26. Admittedly all the alleged incriminating material was found and seized from the possession of Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during the search conducted u/s 132 of the Act at his residence. Those incriminating documents are written

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 13 (1

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

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