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

80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completely disregarded. The object of the expression "charitable" in the Income Tax Act, 1961 has the same purpose as the expression "not for the purpose of profit" in section 32(v)c) of the Act. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment has erred in holding without

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

Appeal is allowed

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

charitable trust duly registered under section 12A vide order dated 14.03.2005 and is also duly approved under section 80G(5)(vi

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

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

trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (vi-a) of clause (23- C) of Section 10, shall not be treated as application of income for charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation

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

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

trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (vi-a) of clause (23- C) of Section 10, shall not be treated as application of income for charitable or religious purposes, either during the period of accumulation

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

vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G shall be in Form No. 10G and shall be made in triplicate. (2) The application shall be accompanied by the following documents, namely:— i. Copy of registration granted under section 12A or copy of notification issued under section 10(23) or 10(23C); ii. Notes on activities of institution or fund since

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

VAIDYA MANGAT RAI FOUNDATION,CHANDIGARH vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmavaidya Mangat Rai The Commissioner Of Foundation Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Friends Colony Chandigarh Gali No.2, Hansi Road Bhiwani. Pan-Aadtv 6078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Sapna Bhattia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024

80G. (1) In computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section,— (i) … (ii) ….. (2) The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely :— (a) …….. (b) ………….. (c) ………………… (d)…………. (4) ………………………. (5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred

BHARAT VIKAS PARISHAD MAHARANA PRATAP NYAS,GURGAON vs. CIT(EXEMPTION) HQTR., CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri L.P. Sahu, A.M.

80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(E) noted that in this case the applicant also filed an application under section 12A of the I.T. Act did not meet the requirement for approval as mandated by Rule 11AA of the I.T. Rules. Even though, the applicant has been granted registration under section 12A recently

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

ANTHILL CREATIONS FOUNDATION,FARIDABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act is treated as premature. The same was accordingly dismissed. 3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that issue is covered by the Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Bharat Bhushan Jain Charitable Trust

FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF MICRO ENTERPRISES,GURUGRAM vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statical purpose

Bench: Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhvs. Cit(Exemptions), Foundation For Advancement Of Micro Chandigarh Enterprises, Unit No. 701 To 711, 7Th Floor, Unitech Commercial, Tower 2, Sector-45, Gurugram, Haryana- 122003 Pan :Aadcf6999F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh Wadhwa, Fca Department By Shri Surender Pal, Cit, Dr

Charitable Trust (supra). The concluding paragraph of the judgment is worth to note in this aspect, which read as under :— "Be that as it may, we are here concerned whether in the absence of any statutory provision to condone the delay in 4 presenting the application under section 10(23C)(vi), the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax can exercise

VISION DIVYANG FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of Ld

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmavision Divyang Foundation Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Plot No. 4, Pocket-A-1, (Exemption), Delhi Sector-8, Rohini, New Delhi Pan : Aactv6355P (Appellant) (Respondent)

VI) vide Form 10G on 07/12/2018. The trust also applied for registration of charitable trust U/s 12(A) (1) of Income Tax Act 1961 in form 10A. The registration U/s 12AA has been granted vide orders dated 29/06/2019 CIT (Exception). 3.1 Ld. Counsel of Appellant assessee submitted but the same CIT (Exemption) has rejected the grant of approval for exemption

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

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

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

OM WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HISAR vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6505/Del/2017

80G(5)(vi) of the Act, the scope was to merely examine the genuineness of the activities of the assessee trust and, whether income received by the assessee trust is liable to be considered under section 11 and 12 of the Act and, not whether the income is actually exempt under section 11 and 12 of the Act. 4. That