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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

Charitable Trust v. ACIT vi) 47 DTR 225 (Del) ITO vs. Purvi Fabrics & Textures (P) Ltd. 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report of inspector 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report of inspector 4. 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

Charitable Trust v. ACIT vi) 47 DTR 225 (Del) ITO vs. Purvi Fabrics & Textures (P) Ltd. 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report of inspector 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report of inspector 4. 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

Charitable Trust v. ACIT vi) 47 DTR 225 (Del) ITO vs. Purvi Fabrics & Textures (P) Ltd. 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report of inspector 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report of inspector 4. 4. No addition can be made on the basis of self serving report

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

58 ITR(T) 297 (Mum.) observed that where the purchases are backed by delivery and payment evidence and the consumption of goods is accepted, the same cannot be treated as bogus. Further, the Delhi Bench in ACIT v. My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024, dated 20.08.2025) reiterated that additions made on assumptions, without verification or tangible material

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

58 ITR(T) 297 (Mum.) observed that where the purchases are backed by delivery and payment evidence and the consumption of goods is accepted, the same cannot be treated as bogus. Further, the Delhi Bench in ACIT v. My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024, dated 20.08.2025) reiterated that additions made on assumptions, without verification or tangible material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

58 ITR(T) 297 (Mum.) observed that where the purchases are backed by delivery and payment evidence and the consumption of goods is accepted, the same cannot be treated as bogus. Further, the Delhi Bench in ACIT v. My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024, dated 20.08.2025) reiterated that additions made on assumptions, without verification or tangible material

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

58 ITR(T) 297 (Mum.) observed that where the purchases are backed by delivery and payment evidence and the consumption of goods is accepted, the same cannot be treated as bogus. Further, the Delhi Bench in ACIT v. My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024, dated 20.08.2025) reiterated that additions made on assumptions, without verification or tangible material

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

58 ITR(T) 297 (Mum.) observed that where the purchases are backed by delivery and payment evidence and the consumption of goods is accepted, the same cannot be treated as bogus. Further, the Delhi Bench in ACIT v. My Paper Merchants Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 226/Del/2024, dated 20.08.2025) reiterated that additions made on assumptions, without verification or tangible material

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)

58,589.00) -Rs. 7,03,69,090/- Assessed on an income of Rs. 7,03,69,0907- Issue notice of demand. Charged interest under section 234B, 234C, 234D accordingly. Issue notice under section 271(l)(c ) of the Income-tax act, 1961 separately for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. to assessee

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

58 of I.T. Act, 1961 & the provisions of section 59 as well. It is therefore, necessary to consider what deductions are admissible to appellant under the provisions of section 57 of I.T. Act, 1961. 110. The deductions u/s 57(i) & 57(ia) as also 57(ii) & 57(iia) are specific in nature & does not apply to the facts

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

58 of I.T. Act, 1961 & the provisions of section 59 as well. It is therefore, necessary to consider what deductions are admissible to appellant under the provisions of section 57 of I.T. Act, 1961. 110. The deductions u/s 57(i) & 57(ia) as also 57(ii) & 57(iia) are specific in nature & does not apply to the facts

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

58 of I.T. Act, 1961 & the provisions of section 59 as well. It is therefore, necessary to consider what deductions are admissible to appellant under the provisions of section 57 of I.T. Act, 1961. 110. The deductions u/s 57(i) & 57(ia) as also 57(ii) & 57(iia) are specific in nature & does not apply to the facts