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

58. Ex facie, therefore, the respondent-Hospital cannot be regarded as established "not for the purpose of profit", as required by Section 32(v)(c) of the Act. The impugned Award of the Tribunal, which proceeds on assumptions and presumptions, without considering the material evidence on record, in the form of, inter alia, the witnesses' statements, and the contents

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:

58 of the Act, in case of dissolution of the Authority, the entire assets will be vested with the State Government. So, no profit of interest is involved. 7. Upto the A.Y 2002-03, the appellant was enjoying exemption from income tax u/s 10(20A) of the Income Tax Act. Following the deletion of Section 10(20A) and insertion

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 Trust, Meerut is siphoning the found of the society by misappropriation of accounts by way of making advance payment under the head of construction of buildings. Here also there is clear-cut of violation the provision of section 13(2) of IT. Further it is also clear that construction of building can not be allowed as application because construction

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

58,384/- which represented the corpus of the trust which was obliged to be spent on the objects of the trust. In the appeal by the revenue, the decision of the CIT (Appeals) that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3) of the Act was challenged. There was also

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

charitable character of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this core is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this core. 55. Regarding salary payment to Mrs. Malvika Rai rendering services for running of educational institution of the appellant trust, we have already given our detail finding in the appeal for the Assessment

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

charitable character of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this core is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this core. 55. Regarding salary payment to Mrs. Malvika Rai rendering services for running of educational institution of the appellant trust, we have already given our detail finding in the appeal for the Assessment

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

charitable character of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this core is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this core. 55. Regarding salary payment to Mrs. Malvika Rai rendering services for running of educational institution of the appellant trust, we have already given our detail finding in the appeal for the Assessment

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

charitable character of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this core is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this core. 55. Regarding salary payment to Mrs. Malvika Rai rendering services for running of educational institution of the appellant trust, we have already given our detail finding in the appeal for the Assessment

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

charitable character of the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the ld. CIT (A) on this core is upheld and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed on this core. 55. Regarding salary payment to Mrs. Malvika Rai rendering services for running of educational institution of the appellant trust, we have already given our detail finding in the appeal for the Assessment

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.

section:- • Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority vs. ADIT(E): 58 SOT 196 (Mum.) • Urmila Devi Charitable Trust v. CIT(E): ITA No.4136/Del/2017

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

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

CIT vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

Section 40-A(2) of the Act; (iii) if issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the revenue, whether the payment made by the assessee to the Trust was excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment was made or legitimate needs of the business

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHANKAR TRADING CO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of

Section 40-A(2) of the Act; (iii) if issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the revenue, whether the payment made by the assessee to the Trust was excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fair market value of the goods, services or facilities for which the payment was made or legitimate needs of the business