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

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

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

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

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause

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

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

2(15) of the Act. He held that entire activities of the assessee cannot be held to be charitable and the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not in the manner laid down under the provisions of the Act. He has even held that entire receipts have to be taxed as income from other sources u/s 56 and still

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

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

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

AKASH EDUCATION SOCIETY,GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR vs. ITO(E), WARD GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

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

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