DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AO to prove that the particular item is undisclosed income. Admittedly, no other evidence is recovered during the course of search to prove that in fact any payment of Rs. 30 crores outside the books of account has been made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AO to prove that the particular item is undisclosed income. Admittedly, no other evidence is recovered during the course of search to prove that in fact any payment of Rs. 30 crores outside the books of account has been made

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AO to prove that the particular item is undisclosed income. Admittedly, no other evidence is recovered during the course of search to prove that in fact any payment of Rs. 30 crores outside the books of account has been made

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

section 132(4A) could be drawn against the assessee. In the block assessment, the burden is upon the AO to prove that the particular item is undisclosed income. Admittedly, no other evidence is recovered during the course of search to prove that in fact any payment of Rs. 30 crores outside the books of account has been made

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

Section 11(4A). 18. In the light of the various judgments mentioned above, we have gone through the relevant facts pertaining to the “School Management and Operation Agreement” entered between the assessee and “Riveridale Preparatory School Society” 19. The relevant portion of the said agreement are as under: “PERIOD OF AGREEMENT 1. This Agreement shall be effective from the date

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act. The society was duly granted registration under section 12AA of the Act on 25-08-2009 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad, which was further granted registration under section 12AB of the Act on 5-4-2022 for assessment years 2022-23 to 2026-27 in accordance with the amended

M/S GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 at Rs.12,50,83,785/- and Rs.10,02,70,000/- M/s. Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust

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

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

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Charitable Trust 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that income has to be computed commercially even in cases covered u/s 11-13 of the Act and resultant loss, if any, arising due to surplus application of income, has to be computed and carried forward to next year to be set off therein accordingly

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. The substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of the assessee in so far as the payment of taxes under the VDIS is concerned and in favour of the Revenue so far as the expenditure incurred outside India (Germany) is concerned. 32. The next question which arises is regarding the applicability of Section

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. The substantial question of law is thus answered in favour of the assessee in so far as the payment of taxes under the VDIS is concerned and in favour of the Revenue so far as the expenditure incurred outside India (Germany) is concerned. 32. The next question which arises is regarding the applicability of Section

GIAN SUGAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.),CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ITA.No.4692/Del

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Charitable Trust (Regd.), Chandigarh. contribution to corpus fund made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 68 and section 115 BBC of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.10,02,70

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST (REGD.), CHANDIGARH

In the result, ITA.No.4692/Del

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Charitable Trust (Regd.), Chandigarh. contribution to corpus fund made by AO by invoking the provisions of section 68 and section 115 BBC of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) has erred in law on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.10,02,70

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

ITO (E), WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. SHRI SWAMI SATYANAND DHARMARTH TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

70 to 79 are also not applicable to the charitable trusts/institutions. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a religious trust and registered under section

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