JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING 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

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

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) of the Act (para 8.1.9 @pg 44-45 of the judgement compilation). Further, reliance placed to Section 12AB (4) of the Act for the alleged violations occurred during AY 2015-16 to AY 2021-22 is without any substance as Section 12AB(4) of the Act is made applicable w.e.f 01.04.2022. 36. As held in Islamic Education (supra

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

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. CB RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ii) of section 36(1) of the Act, it is provided that, where any sum is paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered, the limb that, a deduction shall be allowed, in respect of an amount paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered and, since it was as a result of effort

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. C.B. RICHARD ELLIS SOUTH ASIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ii) of section 36(1) of the Act, it is provided that, where any sum is paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered, the limb that, a deduction shall be allowed, in respect of an amount paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered and, since it was as a result of effort

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)

ii) of sub-section (4), shall be hundred per cent of the profits and gains of the eligible business for the first five assessment years commencing at any time during the periods as specified in sub-section (2) and thereafter, thirty per cent of such profits and gains for further five assessment years. (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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)

ii) of sub-section (4), shall be hundred per cent of the profits and gains of the eligible business for the first five assessment years commencing at any time during the periods as specified in sub-section (2) and thereafter, thirty per cent of such profits and gains for further five assessment years. (3) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (5) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

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

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

ii) of para 4 of trust deed, simultaneously, violating the provision of Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act while carring out of its activity. The society was established with the sole intention of helping charitable and philanthropic venture of running of medical college and thereby seeking to claim exemption on the income so generated 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

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

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

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