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

charitable institution. The Tribunal also relied on the certificates, issued to the respondent-Hospital under Section 80-G of the Income Tax Act, as also the bye- laws of the Trust, which referred to one of the objects of the Trust being the setting up of Hospitals or other Medical Institutions for administering medical relief to the needy, carrying

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Charitable Trust vs State of Haryana AIR [2003] SC 1648 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Hansraj Bhai [2001] 5 SCL 175, it was submitted that it is well-settled that in relation to the same subject matter, if different words/terminology of different import are used in the same statute then there is a presumption that they are not used

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed to the extent as mentioned above on the preliminary issue and the departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.J.S.Reddyi.T.A .No.-3304/Del/2010 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, Corporate Office, Taxation Section, Circle-2(1), Room No.-398, First Floor, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate, Janpath, New Delhi-1110001. New Delhi Pan-Aabcb5576G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Charitable Trust vs State of Haryana AIR [2003] SC 1648 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Hansraj Bhai [2001] 5 SCL 175, it was submitted that it is well-settled that in relation to the same subject matter, if different words/terminology of different import are used in the same statute then there is a presumption that they are not used

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

5) or if it is not utilized for purposes for which it is so accumulated or set apart during the period referred to in clause (a) of Section 11(2). A similar contingency is then spoken of if the accumulated income under Section 11(2) is credited or paid to institutions registered under Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

5) or if it is not utilized for purposes for which it is so accumulated or set apart during the period referred to in clause (a) of Section 11(2). A similar contingency is then spoken of if the accumulated income under Section 11(2) is credited or paid to institutions registered under Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date

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

5 Bhagwant Singh Charitable Trust Under the provision as it existed prior to 1-4-1952, there was no difference maintained between application of the income of the trust within or without the taxable territories. The provision as it existed after the amendment made with effect from 1-4-1952 makes a reference to application or accumulation for application

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2 vs. CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Trust, of Section 80-G(5) of the IT Act. For the reasons already set out, in detail, in my earlier decision in Batra Hospital Employees Union (supra), grant of exemption, under Section 80-G(5) of the IT Act cannot, in any manner, serve as a basis for the Hospital to claim the benefit of Section

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, 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 or religious institution, any income thereof, if for any period during the previous year- (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February, 1983, otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 ; or (ii) any funds

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. 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

80,67,065/- and the consolidated profit of these undertakings amounted to 2 Assessment year 2013-14 Rs. 97,82,19,889/-. The Assessing Officer also observed that besides the above, the assessee had a gross receipt of Rs. 20,71,87,624/- from its main Trust and the assessee had further claimed inter-trust donations to the tune

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

5 18,000 TOTAL 80,14,800 9,99,000 6,73,200 LATE FINE 2,65,095 FEES 27,750 30,500 B/S 82,79,895 B/S 7,00,950 10,29,500 4,70,900 1,04,81,245 18. From the above details, it is quite evident that the assessee school has been charging fees only from

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

80,56,929/- as made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the taxes paid under VDIS related to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1997-98 and that they were paid to protect the existence of trust which was absolutely necessary for its continuance. According

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. SERVICES COMPANIES

In the result the appeals are disposed of as above with no order as to

80,56,929/- as made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the taxes paid under VDIS related to the assessment years 1989-90 to 1997-98 and that they were paid to protect the existence of trust which was absolutely necessary for its continuance. According

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

5 12 1,100 12 29 3,82,800 18,000 29,000 TOTAL 80,14,800 6,73,200 9,99,000 FINE 2,65,095 27,750 30,500 4,70,900 1,04,81, 245 B/S 82,79,895 7,00,950 10,29,500 ITA Nos.4464 & 4463/Del/2017 Confrere Educational Society vs. ITO(E) 16 18. From

GOPURI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Charitable Trust Vs. DCIT 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:- “DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VI-A/SECTION 80-G/ 80GGA READ WITH SECTION 35 AC OF THE ACT RS. 45,58,990/- : 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals

JAIN MAHASABHA DELHI,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both both appeals of the assessee are allowed for assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekshri Sudhir Pareek

trust or institution has been provisionally registered under section 12AB[or provisionally approved registered under section 12AB[or provisionally approved registered under section 12AB[or provisionally approved under sub under sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10), at least six clause

JAIN MAHASABHA DELHI,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both both appeals of the assessee are allowed for assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekshri Sudhir Pareek

trust or institution has been provisionally registered under section 12AB[or provisionally approved registered under section 12AB[or provisionally approved registered under section 12AB[or provisionally approved under sub under sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10), at least six clause

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

5,80,12,138/- is hereby carried forward to the subsequent years. I am further fortified in my above findings by various judgments of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi benches which have consistently held in favour of the assessee on this issue. In the case of Director of Income Tax Vs Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust [2011] 197 Taxmann 170 Delhi