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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

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

69), Unexplained Money\n(Section 69A), Amount of Investment, etc., not fully disclosed in books of\naccount (Section 69B), Unexplained Expenditure, etc. (Section 69C). The\nrequirement of each of the aforesaid sections are different and the rules of\nevidence and burden of proof are also different, hence, unless the\nPetitioner to put the notice as to the exact contravention

BHAGWANT SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

69,72,310/- and claimed only the balance amount of Rs. 39,72,310/- as application of income. The car is not being used by the trustee for personal use and same was used only for activities of the trust. The Id. 2 Bhagwant Singh Charitable Trust CIT(A) is also wrong in holding that the repayment of loan through

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

charitable objective of providing medical relief, education and relief to the poor. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) also noted that the assessee trust was empowered vide clause (o) of its objectives to accept voluntary donations and that donations to Patajali Yogpeeth Trust amounted to application of income for the purpose of 4 Assessment year 2013-14 medical relief

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

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

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

69-70 of PB) respectively, the Assessing Officer himself computed and allowed the benefit of exemption under section 11(1)(a) on gross income of the appellant. 12.13 Similarly, even in the regular assessment order for the AY 2017-18 passed under section 143(3) on 10.12.2019 (after the passing of assessment orders in the present appeal), the Assessing Officer

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

69-70 of PB) respectively, the Assessing Officer himself computed and allowed the benefit of exemption under section 11(1)(a) on gross income of the appellant. 12.13 Similarly, even in the regular assessment order for the AY 2017-18 passed under section 143(3) on 10.12.2019 (after the passing of assessment orders in the present appeal), the Assessing Officer

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

charitable purposes which would be regarded as application of income. Hence, the AO is directed to adopt the appellant trust's status as AOP (Trust) and allow benefits of sec. 10(23C)(iv) or 11/12 of the Act. The addition made at Rs. 4,38,69,083/- by disallowing capital expenditure is directed to be deleted. The ground raised

M/S. MANJEET KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 11 is the real income and not the income as assessed or assessable. Accordingly, while arriving at the rental income of the assessee-trust any expenditure incurred whatsoever related to the rental income has to be allowed as deduction and the net income which is the real income, will be treated as the income of the Trust. From

M/S. MANJIT KAUR MEMORIAL PREMIER INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

section 11 is the real income and not the income as assessed or assessable. Accordingly, while arriving at the rental income of the assessee-trust any expenditure incurred whatsoever related to the rental income has to be allowed as deduction and the net income which is the real income, will be treated as the income of the Trust. From

RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

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

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI vs. SANTOSH TRUST, NEW DELHI

69,042\nFY 2016-17\n66,63,01,905\n56,45,26,470\nto 6,10,12,523\n85,30,558\n3.\nInformation from various banks, therefore, was also sought for\nunder Section 133(6) of the Act upon consideration whereof it appears\nthat in comparison to the cash flow statement of all the last 3 years,\nsubstantial amount

VIDYADAYANI SHIKSHA SAMITI,ROORKEE vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhvidyadayani Shiksha Samiti, Cit (Exemptions)-5, Vs. 2, Civil Lines, Roorkee. Lucknow. Pan : Aaaav6951C (Appellant) (Respondent)

69 DTR 315, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that once it is admitted that in pursuance of the trust deed and in terms of the objects set out therein, schools and colleges are being run and educational institution are being run, nothing more requires to be established to show that