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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ANIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

charitable purpose", as used in Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, with the words "not for purposes of profit" used in Section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act. This, in my opinion, would be entirely impermissible in law. Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:30.05.2023 16:16:35 Signature Not Verified LPA 99/2018 Page

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

M/S. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result we dismiss the appeal of the assessee

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year:

Trust ( supra ) confirms the view that applicability of decisions is to be seen with respect to provisions for which, a decision was rendered. The decision upon was based on the redundancy of section 11 (4), if the prohibition u/s 13(1 )(bb) is extended to the fourth category of Charitable Objects i.e. any other object of general public; utility " Moreover

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

57.” 9 ITA No.4727/Del./2017 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a society registered under ‘Registration of Societies Act, 1860’, which is carrying out educational activities upto Senior Secondary Level and a running school in the name of “Adarsh Public School” in NOIDA. Looking to its activities for “charitable purposes” in terms of section

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

57.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a society registered under ‘Registration of Societies Act, 1860’, which is carrying out educational activities upto Senior Secondary Level and a running school in the name of “Adarsh Public School” in NOIDA. Looking to its activities for “charitable purposes” in terms of section 2(15), i.e., ‘education

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

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year- (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983, otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 ; or (ii) any funds

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 57(iii) provides that any other expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purposes making or earning such income is to be allowe as deduction against incoem chargeable to the incoem tax u/s 56 of I.T Act, 1961. 113. The appellant society is a charitable institution

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 57(iii) provides that any other expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purposes making or earning such income is to be allowe as deduction against incoem chargeable to the incoem tax u/s 56 of I.T Act, 1961. 113. The appellant society is a charitable institution

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 57(iii) provides that any other expenditure not being in the nature of capital expenditure laid out or expended wholly or exclusively for the purposes making or earning such income is to be allowe as deduction against incoem chargeable to the incoem tax u/s 56 of I.T Act, 1961. 113. The appellant society is a charitable institution