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

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

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

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,EXEMPTION RANGE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

Charitable Trust reported in (1995) 216 ITR 697 (SC); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax V s. Programme for Community Organization reported in (2001) 248 ITR 1 (SC); (iv) Society of the Servants of the Holy Spirit Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) - ITA No. 975/Bang/2015 (ITAT Bangalore); and (v) DCIT Vs. Rashtrothana Parishat - ITA No. 896 & 897/Bang/2014 (ITAT Bangalore

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION OF INDIA,KANPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMOPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD , GHAZIABAD

In the result, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and AO

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember

Charitable Trust reported in (1995) 216 ITR 697 (SC); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax V s. Programme for Community Organization reported in (2001) 248 ITR 1 (SC); (iv) Society of the Servants of the Holy Spirit Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) - ITA No. 975/Bang/2015 (ITAT Bangalore); and (v) DCIT Vs. Rashtrothana Parishat - ITA No. 896 & 897/Bang/2014 (ITAT Bangalore

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(b). Most important fact was that the supplementary deed was filed before DIT (E) and the ld. DIT(E) after reviewing the case of the appellant trust has granted fresh registration u/s.12A and 80G as per details given hereunder;- Date Partculars 01.02.2001 Trust Settled - Trust Deed 25.06.2002 Registration u/s 12A granted 19.04.2004 Supplementary Trust Deed 09.01.2008 Application for renewal

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(b). Most important fact was that the supplementary deed was filed before DIT (E) and the ld. DIT(E) after reviewing the case of the appellant trust has granted fresh registration u/s.12A and 80G as per details given hereunder;- Date Partculars 01.02.2001 Trust Settled - Trust Deed 25.06.2002 Registration u/s 12A granted 19.04.2004 Supplementary Trust Deed 09.01.2008 Application for renewal

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(b). Most important fact was that the supplementary deed was filed before DIT (E) and the ld. DIT(E) after reviewing the case of the appellant trust has granted fresh registration u/s.12A and 80G as per details given hereunder;- Date Partculars 01.02.2001 Trust Settled - Trust Deed 25.06.2002 Registration u/s 12A granted 19.04.2004 Supplementary Trust Deed 09.01.2008 Application for renewal

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(b). Most important fact was that the supplementary deed was filed before DIT (E) and the ld. DIT(E) after reviewing the case of the appellant trust has granted fresh registration u/s.12A and 80G as per details given hereunder;- Date Partculars 01.02.2001 Trust Settled - Trust Deed 25.06.2002 Registration u/s 12A granted 19.04.2004 Supplementary Trust Deed 09.01.2008 Application for renewal

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

1)(b). Most important fact was that the supplementary deed was filed before DIT (E) and the ld. DIT(E) after reviewing the case of the appellant trust has granted fresh registration u/s.12A and 80G as per details given hereunder;- Date Partculars 01.02.2001 Trust Settled - Trust Deed 25.06.2002 Registration u/s 12A granted 19.04.2004 Supplementary Trust Deed 09.01.2008 Application for renewal

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

trust vis a vis subject donations made to recipient "registered" charitable organizations. 9. ON DEMURRER TOTAL LACK OF SCN INVALIDAT THE IMPUGNED ASST: As evident from cursory look to impugned asst order dated 30.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) merely after notice u/s 142 11.10.2018 & 15.12.2018 impugned Asstt. is framed without any SCN (show cause notice) much less valid SCN being

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

charitable trust.’ Treating the income of a political party to be that of a Trust and using the same principle to test the treatment of its expenses is inconsistent with the very scheme of the Act. 70. It is clear, therefore, that for understanding and interpreting Section 13A of the Act, it would serve no purpose to compare it with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XI vs. INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS/ALL INDIA CONGRESS COMMITTEE

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

charitable trust.’ Treating the income of a political party to be that of a Trust and using the same principle to test the treatment of its expenses is inconsistent with the very scheme of the Act. 70. It is clear, therefore, that for understanding and interpreting Section 13A of the Act, it would serve no purpose to compare it with

INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

charitable trust.’ Treating the income of a political party to be that of a Trust and using the same principle to test the treatment of its expenses is inconsistent with the very scheme of the Act. 70. It is clear, therefore, that for understanding and interpreting Section 13A of the Act, it would serve no purpose to compare it with

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

56(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 while it could have been taxed under section 11 (4A) if the Appellant failed to maintain proper books of account in relation to any income of the (Society) trust being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the (Society) trust but in the case