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

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

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

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

56(2)(x), a go by and treat the stamp duty value of the flat at\nRs.11,68,99,000/- as from unexplained source under Section 69 of the Act. There\nis no reference to Section 36(2)(x) of the Act in the operative part of the order\ndated 29th September 2022. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 154 of the Act during pendency of\nthe appeal before the learned CIT(A) and once the Assessing Officer accepted the position by\ndeleting the addition by exercising the jurisdiction u/s 154 of the Act, Revenue no longer can be\ntreated as aggrieved party. He argued that once the rectification order is passed by the Assessing\nOfficer by putting

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. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Trust (2001) 248 ITR 41 (Del.) (supra). If the land at Dhokra village was not meant for charitable purposes, the assessee-society would not have got benefit of Sections 11 and 12 for all these years. We, therefore, held that the land at Village- Dhokra which was sold in A.Y. 2007-2008 was meant for educational purposes only. Copy

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 in India and computed the surplus of the assessee-trust in the following manner: - “Gross Receipts `2,56,84,141/- Less Exemption u/s 11(1) Amount actually applied* `77,94,166/- Application applied u/s 11(2) `33,00,000/- 25% of Income accumulated `64,21,035/- for application. Assets purchased `1,12,011/- ______________ `1,76,27,212/- ______________ Surplus

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 in India and computed the surplus of the assessee-trust in the following manner: - “Gross Receipts `2,56,84,141/- Less Exemption u/s 11(1) Amount actually applied* `77,94,166/- Application applied u/s 11(2) `33,00,000/- 25% of Income accumulated `64,21,035/- for application. Assets purchased `1,12,011/- ______________ `1,76,27,212/- ______________ Surplus

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

56 without any deduction and directed the AO to issue demand notice after enhancing the income at Rs.13,33,73,102/-. 13. The crux of the finding of the CIT (A) is that since assessee is carrying out educational activities, therefore, there is a separate provision under the Act i.e. 10(23C) and assessee cannot claim benefit of sections

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

56 "INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES without any deduction of expenses incurred for carrying out the same activity. 5. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is perverse being self contradictory as well as contrary to the Act and registration granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) u/s 12AA read with S.2(15). 6. That the order

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable activity, but its activities are tainted with profit motive. Accordingly, he denied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act and enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs.19.69 crores for assessment year 2007-08 by Rs.55.19 crores, for assessment year 2009-10 by Rs.62.37 crores for assessment year 2011-12 and by Rs.69.19 crores for assessment year

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable activity, but its activities are tainted with profit motive. Accordingly, he denied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act and enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs.19.69 crores for assessment year 2007-08 by Rs.55.19 crores, for assessment year 2009-10 by Rs.62.37 crores for assessment year 2011-12 and by Rs.69.19 crores for assessment year

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable activity, but its activities are tainted with profit motive. Accordingly, he denied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act and enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs.19.69 crores for assessment year 2007-08 by Rs.55.19 crores, for assessment year 2009-10 by Rs.62.37 crores for assessment year 2011-12 and by Rs.69.19 crores for assessment year

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable activity, but its activities are tainted with profit motive. Accordingly, he denied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act and enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs.19.69 crores for assessment year 2007-08 by Rs.55.19 crores, for assessment year 2009-10 by Rs.62.37 crores for assessment year 2011-12 and by Rs.69.19 crores for assessment year

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable activity, but its activities are tainted with profit motive. Accordingly, he denied exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Act and enhanced the income of the assessee by Rs.19.69 crores for assessment year 2007-08 by Rs.55.19 crores, for assessment year 2009-10 by Rs.62.37 crores for assessment year 2011-12 and by Rs.69.19 crores for assessment year

AKASH EDUCATION SOCIETY,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-3, NOIDA

In the result 1 – 3 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

charitable (Society) Trust within the meaning of section 2(15) of I.T. Act which is imparting education through its school and providing the students transport and Hostel facility, which is integral part of education because the whole function is run by the trust itself. 9. Because the Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in taxing