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

section 32(v) (c) of the Act:- “(i) The CMC was being run on commercial lines. (ii) The cost of education for a single Medical student was Rs. 64,000/- per year, whereas the fee charged from a student for a year, was only Rs. 3,000/-. This indicated that it was only from the earnings of the hospital, that

DCIT (EXEMPTION), UTTAR PRADESH vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 2(15) of the Act and was not an object of general public utility. It was further held that business being only 12 ITA No.5612/Del./2015 a means of achieving the object of the trust, exemption could not be denied. 6.6.3. The contention of the Ld. CIT(DR) also remained that the predominant objective of the appellant trust

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

ACIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST,, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2010-11 Acit (Exemption) Vs Divya Yog Mandir Trust Circle, Cgo-1 Kripalu Bag, Hapur Road, Kankhal, Haridwar Ghaziabad (Pan Aaatd1114E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 2(15) of the Act and was not an object of general public utility. It was further held that business being only a means of achieving the object of the trust, exemption could not be denied. 6.6.3 The contention of the Ld. CIT(DR) also remained that the predominant objective of the appellant trust is to prepare and sell

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Exemptions), Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Kripalu Bagh, Cgo-Ii, Vs Kankhal, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Haridwar. Ghaziabad. (Pan: Aaatd1114E) Appellant Respondent Department By: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rohti Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2019 O R D E R

section 2(15) of the Act and was not an object of general public utility. It was further held that business being only a means of achieving the object of the trust, exemption could not be denied. 6.6.3 The contention of the Ld. CIT(DR) also remained that the predominant objective of the appellant trust is to prepare and sell

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

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

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

Section 11 to assessee society has held that, since imparting of education is a matter of pure charity, therefore, the educational institution is not permitted to receive or recover the cost of charity from its beneficiary by way of fees, i.e., charging of fees itself would amount uncharitable activity. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition at all, because

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

Section 11 to assessee society has held that, since imparting of education is a matter of pure charity, therefore, the educational institution is not permitted to receive or recover the cost of charity from its beneficiary by way of fees, i.e., charging of fees itself would amount uncharitable activity. We are unable to subscribe to this proposition at all, because

DSOB CLASS OF 64 CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms stated above

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

64 Charitable Trusts Vs. DCIT, CPC Rs. 8,86,695/- has been applied charitable purpose under section 11 of the Act. It tantamount

PRABHU SARAN GARG CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 3558/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year 2010-11 Prabhu Saran Garg Charitable Vs. Jcit, Trust, C/O M/S O.P. Sapra & Range-2, Associates, C-763, New Friends Ghaziabad Colony, New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp9634M Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Girish Kumar Kohali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2022

Charitable Trust 17. Section 11(1)(d) reads as under: (w.e.f. 01.04.1989)- incomes not includable- “income in the form of voluntary contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution”. 18. Section 11(1)(d) reads as under: (w.e.f. 01.04.2021) “11(1)………… (d) income in the form of voluntary contributions

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

trust. Assessee failed to justify that maintenance and fuel expenses of cars were exclusively incurred for the aims and objects of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in ignoring the fact that due to the fact that assessee was denied benefits

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

trust. Assessee failed to justify that maintenance and fuel expenses of cars were exclusively incurred for the aims and objects of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in ignoring the fact that due to the fact that assessee was denied benefits

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

trust. Assessee failed to justify that maintenance and fuel expenses of cars were exclusively incurred for the aims and objects of the assessee. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law in ignoring the fact that due to the fact that assessee was denied benefits