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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

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

50. Then, there is nothing in the language of Section 12AA(3) of the Act that may suggest registration of the assessee may be cancelled with retrospective effect. The use of the words 'or have obtained registration at any time under Section 12-A of the Act' added by amendment w.e.f. 01.06.2010 only indicate that the Commissioner was vested

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 11(2) of the Act during the financial year in question having been utilized to extend donations to other charitable institutions. It was stated that the aforesaid sum though transferred to the Trust Fund Account was utilized for granting corpus donations to other charitable trusts. The accumulation was explained in the shape of a table which is extracted hereinbelow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

Section 11(2) of the Act during the financial year in question having been utilized to extend donations to other charitable institutions. It was stated that the aforesaid sum though transferred to the Trust Fund Account was utilized for granting corpus donations to other charitable trusts. The accumulation was explained in the shape of a table which is extracted hereinbelow

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

Section 11. The donation must be given to a trust that is\nrecognized and engaged in charitable activities as per the Income Tax Act, 1961.\nFailure to ensure the proper utilization of these donations raised serious concerns\nregarding the validity of the exemption claim. Inter-charity donation is permissible as\napplication of income but it is to be ensured that

M/S GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.12,50,83,785/- and Rs.10,02,70,000/- M/s. Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust

DCIT (EXEMPTION), UTTAR PRADESH vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 2(15) of the Act and was not an object of general public utility. It was further held that business being only 12 ITA No.5612/Del./2015 a means of achieving the object of the trust, exemption could not be denied. 6.6.3. The contention of the Ld. CIT(DR) also remained that the predominant objective of the appellant trust

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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references shall be dealt with\nin the manner provided under

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

ACIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST,, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2010-11 Acit (Exemption) Vs Divya Yog Mandir Trust Circle, Cgo-1 Kripalu Bag, Hapur Road, Kankhal, Haridwar Ghaziabad (Pan Aaatd1114E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) of the Act and was not an object of general public utility. It was further held that business being only a means of achieving the object of the trust, exemption could not be denied. 6.6.3 The contention of the Ld. CIT(DR) also remained that the predominant objective of the appellant trust is to prepare and sell

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

charitable objects. There is no settlement of the business in Katha upon trust for the simple reason that the business itself was not in existence at the time of formation of the trust. The property held under trust was merely a sum of2,100/-, contributed more or less equally by the settlors at the time of creation of trust

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

charitable objects. There is no settlement of the business in Katha upon trust for the simple reason that the business itself was not in existence at the time of formation of the trust. The property held under trust was merely a sum of2,100/-, contributed more or less equally by the settlors at the time of creation of trust

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

charitable objects. There is no settlement of the business in Katha upon trust for the simple reason that the business itself was not in existence at the time of formation of the trust. The property held under trust was merely a sum of2,100/-, contributed more or less equally by the settlors at the time of creation of trust

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

charitable objects. There is no settlement of the business in Katha upon trust for the simple reason that the business itself was not in existence at the time of formation of the trust. The property held under trust was merely a sum of2,100/-, contributed more or less equally by the settlors at the time of creation of trust

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

charitable objects. There is no settlement of the business in Katha upon trust for the simple reason that the business itself was not in existence at the time of formation of the trust. The property held under trust was merely a sum of2,100/-, contributed more or less equally by the settlors at the time of creation of trust