AMERICAN EXPRESS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 80G(iiihk) the donation of Rs.l crores made to Swach Bharat Kosh is not eligible for deduction u/s 80G of the Act. The company can claim deduction of fifty percent of the donation of Rs. 1 crores paid to any other registered charitable trust u/s 80G(2)(iv

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

charitable purpose either in India or abroad, question arises as to whether the trust is entitled to tax exemption even though income utilized outside India is not of a very significant amount. 7.2 As per the terms of clause 15(1)(i) of the trust deed annual general meeting is not convened atleast once in a year. He submitted that

GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6054/Del./2018 : Asstt. Year : Gian Sagar Educational & Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Charitable Trust, Flat No. 509, Tax, Central Circle-27, 5Th Floor, Indraprakash Building, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5827B Assessee By : Sh. Amol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2020

80G of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide F.No. CIT- II/CHD/809/Tech 187/471 dated 07.05.2007. 12 Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust 2. During the course of enquiry conducted by DDIT(Inv.), Patiala in the case of M/s PACL group of cases on 22.03.2010, it was brought on record that CBI had arrested Sh. Kamaljit Sing, CEO of M/s Gian Sagar Medical College

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

iv) of clause (a) of sub section (2), only if it is established in India for a charitable purpose..." Mr Sharma would submit that there is no real difference between the expressions "established not for the purpose of profit" and "established for a charitable purpose" and that, therefore, the certificates issued to his client under Section

INDIAN INTERNATIONAL CENTRE,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 India International Centre, Vs. Cit (E), 40, Max Muller Marg, Room No.2620, Lodhi Estate, Civic Centre, New Delhi. Jl Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaati0660C

trust cannot be called as serving the general public. He further noted that the entire activities of the assessee also include providing of services such as accommodation, food and beverages, etc., for payment of charges which is caught within the mischief proviso 1 and 2 to section 2(15) read with 3rd proviso to section 2

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

IV & V GROUND VI: ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in holding that the activity carried out by the Appellant is in the nature of trade, commerce or business and accordingly, it is hit by the proviso to section 2

JCIT(OSD)(E) CIRCLE-2(1), NEW DELHI vs. POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

80G of the Act the assessee is recognized as charitable institution, whereas, for the purpose of section 10(23C)(iv) assessee loses its charitable status. This approach of the revenue is unacceptable. 25. In the aforesaid scenario, the approval under section 10(23C) of the Act cannot be revoked, more so, when the objects of the assessee have remained same

POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

2. Auro Lab Vs. ITO, 411 ITR 308 (Mad.) 3. Indian Medical Trust Vs. PCIT, 414 ITR 296 (Raj.) 4. Urmila Devi Charitable Trust Vs. CIT (E), ITA No. 4136/Del/2017 (Del. Trib.) 18. Strongly relying upon the observations of the departmental authorities as well as Special Auditor, learned Departmental Representative submitted, various details called for by the Assessing Officer were

ITO (E), DELHI vs. SUVASINI CHARITABLE TRUST,, DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm Ita No. 4330/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer(E), Vs Suvasini Charitable Trust, Trust Ward-Ii, Swaminarayan Akshardham Delhi Mandir, Nh-24, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafts6497L Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

80G(5)(vi) of the Act vide order dated 27.09.2006. The assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at Nil after claiming application of income as per the provisions of Section 11 of the Act. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Later on, the case was selected for 3 Suvasini Charitable

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. M/S BAGRI FOUNDATION

80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2010:DHC:3202-DB 2003-04 at Rs.31,38,840/- and initiating penalty proceedings against the Assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income. 2. The Assessee for the relevant year filed return declaring „Nil‟ income. The case though processed under Section 143(1) was selected

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

2. The assessee is stated to have been registered under Society Registration The assessee is stated to have been registered under Society Registration The assessee is stated to have been registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 on 14.08.1989 and claimed to be engaged in 1860 on 14.08.1989 and claimed to be engaged in providing providing relief to the poor

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

2. The assessee is stated to have been registered under Society Registration The assessee is stated to have been registered under Society Registration The assessee is stated to have been registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 on 14.08.1989 and claimed to be engaged in 1860 on 14.08.1989 and claimed to be engaged in providing providing relief to the poor

JUST BE FOUNDATION TRUST ,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshram/S Just Be Foundation Commissioner Of Income Trust Flat No. 01, Yamuna Vs Tax (Exemptions), E-2, Apartments, Alaknanda, Civic Centre, New Delhi New Delhi-110019

80G(5) of I.T. Act are also reproduced as under:- (5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), only if it is established in India for a charitable purpose and if it fulfills the following conditions, namely :— (i) where the institution or fund derives

JINDAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY,DELHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3, DELHI

In the result, the assessees‟ appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshlala Sher Singh Memorial Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, Jhandewalan, New Plot No. 18, Sector-22, Phase-1, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaal2241H Jindal Charitable Society, Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Ps-2, C-3, Block, Phase-Ii, Jhandewalan, New Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0588L Florence Nighingale Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Educational Society, Jhandewalan, New Sector-16B, Phase-I, Haf Delhi Pocket-A, Sector-22, Delhi- 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaf1097R

80G of the Act. The assessee society operates under the name of „Prudence School‟ in Ashok Vihar, New Delhi. On 24-08-2022, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on Smt Sudha Gupta, Shri Devendra Gupta and others including the Prudence Group and statements of some individuals were recorded. The case

FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,DELHI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-3, DELHI

In the result, the assessees‟ appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshlala Sher Singh Memorial Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, Jhandewalan, New Plot No. 18, Sector-22, Phase-1, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaal2241H Jindal Charitable Society, Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Ps-2, C-3, Block, Phase-Ii, Jhandewalan, New Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0588L Florence Nighingale Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Educational Society, Jhandewalan, New Sector-16B, Phase-I, Haf Delhi Pocket-A, Sector-22, Delhi- 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaf1097R

80G of the Act. The assessee society operates under the name of „Prudence School‟ in Ashok Vihar, New Delhi. On 24-08-2022, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on Smt Sudha Gupta, Shri Devendra Gupta and others including the Prudence Group and statements of some individuals were recorded. The case

LALA SHER SINGH MEMORIAL JEEVAN VIGYAN TRUST SOCIETY,DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)-3, JHANDEWALAN NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the assessees‟ appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshlala Sher Singh Memorial Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Jeevan Vigyan Trust Society, Jhandewalan, New Plot No. 18, Sector-22, Phase-1, Delhi Dwarka, Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaal2241H Jindal Charitable Society, Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Ps-2, C-3, Block, Phase-Ii, Jhandewalan, New Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0588L Florence Nighingale Vs. Pcit(Central)-3, Educational Society, Jhandewalan, New Sector-16B, Phase-I, Haf Delhi Pocket-A, Sector-22, Delhi- 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaaf1097R

80G of the Act. The assessee society operates under the name of „Prudence School‟ in Ashok Vihar, New Delhi. On 24-08-2022, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on Smt Sudha Gupta, Shri Devendra Gupta and others including the Prudence Group and statements of some individuals were recorded. The case

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

iv. The institutions were operated by the assessee with a clear profit motive, and as business organization instead of a charitable one. v. The founders and controlling members have appropriated certain part of surplus fund for furtherance of their own need. On the aforementioned grounds the activities of the assessee are held to be not charitable within the meaning

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

iv. The institutions were operated by the assessee with a clear profit motive, and as business organization instead of a charitable one. v. The founders and controlling members have appropriated certain part of surplus fund for furtherance of their own need. On the aforementioned grounds the activities of the assessee are held to be not charitable within the meaning