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

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

x) of the Act, therefore, there was no necessity for the assessee to prove that it was done so for charitable purposes. Section 11(5) provides that accumulated amount u/s 11(2) has to be kept in specified moods of investment which include investment in immovable property. It does not provide such immovable property must be meant for any specific

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

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

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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

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

x) In view of the overall excess of expenditure over income and the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranchi Club Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2001) 247 ITR 209 (SC), the interest charged under Section 234A and 234B of the Act was required to be deleted. (xi) The Revenue’s appeal was dismissed by observing that the allowance

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

x) of the I.T. Act permitted the assessee-society to make investment in immovable properties. PB-204 is Order of the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2007-2008 in which same facts have been mentioned and filing Form-10 by the assessee-society in which Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that the income to the extent of Rs.7

M/S. SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

x) of the I.T. Act permitted the assessee-society to make investment in immovable properties. PB-204 is Order of the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2007-2008 in which same facts have been mentioned and filing Form-10 by the assessee-society in which Ld. CIT(A) has given a finding that the income to the extent of Rs.7

DEVKI DEVI FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DIT (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: -- Devki Devi Foundation, Vs Dit (Exemptions), Plot No.15, 3Rd Floor, 2, Press Enclave Road, Saket, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatd5283G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2011 Of The Dit (Exemptions), Delhi Withdrawing Registration Granted Earlier U/S 12A Of The It Act Since Inception.

x) Thiagarajar Charities vs. Addl. CIT: 225 ITR 1010, 1026 (SC) xi) CIT v. St. Peter’s Educational Society: 385 ITR 66 (SC) xii) Tolani Education Society v. Dy. DIT(Exemptions)- 351 ITR 184 (Bom.)- (approved by SC Queen's Educational Society v CIT in 372 ITR 699) xiii) CIT v Delhi Kannada Education Society

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

x) of the Act, therefore, there was no necessity for the assessee to prove that it was done so for charitable purposes. Section 11(5) provides that accumulated amount u/s 11(2) has to be kept in specified moods of investment which include investment in immovable property. It does not provide such immovable property must be meant for any specific

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

56,21,998 15% for deduction 15,83,43,300 Balance income for application 89,72,78,698 10. The AO rejected the above method of computation computed by the assessee and he observed that the assessee has entered turnover and loans taken on account of ADIP and ADIP-SSA schemes for computation of deduction @ 15%. However, the same need

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

56,21,998 15% for deduction 15,83,43,300 Balance income for application 89,72,78,698 10. The AO rejected the above method of computation computed by the assessee and he observed that the assessee has entered turnover and loans taken on account of ADIP and ADIP-SSA schemes for computation of deduction @ 15%. However, the same need

DLF LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

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

Section 41(1) the assessee should have obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of the loss or expenditure earlier allowed as a deduction. This part of the reasoning, in the light of the amended clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41 may not be relevant after substitution of the said

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

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

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- DELHI vs. M/S PASUPATI NATH COMMR. P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

x) On the question of the interest claimed in relation to the above mentioned loan, as a consequence of the finding that the credit of loan from the aforesaid trust was genuine, the disallowance could not be sustained and was deleted. Questions of law 20. On 21st September 2004, while admitting these appeals, the Court framed the following questions

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DEL vs. M/S TRISHUL COMMERCIAL P. LTD.

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

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

x) On the question of the interest claimed in relation to the above mentioned loan, as a consequence of the finding that the credit of loan from the aforesaid trust was genuine, the disallowance could not be sustained and was deleted. Questions of law 20. On 21st September 2004, while admitting these appeals, the Court framed the following questions