SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

92,60,191/- made on account of interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. 6. As against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, Assessee preferred appeals before Tribunal. Against the deletion of additions for AY 2014-15 to AY 2017-18, Revenue also preferred the captioned

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

92,60,191/- made on account of interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. 6. As against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, Assessee preferred appeals before Tribunal. Against the deletion of additions for AY 2014-15 to AY 2017-18, Revenue also preferred the captioned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

92,60,191/- made on account of interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. 6. As against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, Assessee preferred appeals before Tribunal. Against the deletion of additions for AY 2014-15 to AY 2017-18, Revenue also preferred the captioned

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

92,60,191/- made on account of interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. 6. As against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, Assessee preferred appeals before Tribunal. Against the deletion of additions for AY 2014-15 to AY 2017-18, Revenue also preferred the captioned

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

92,60,191/- made on account of interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. 6. As against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the additions for AY 2016-17 and 2017-18, Assessee preferred appeals before Tribunal. Against the deletion of additions for AY 2014-15 to AY 2017-18, Revenue also preferred the captioned

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

trust in carrying out educational activities; (f) Sixthly, the CIT(A), it appears, was influenced by the fact that Mrs. Malvika Rai was only a graduate, which cannot be the basis to hold that services rendered were not commensurate with the salary paid. It has not been appreciated that Mrs. Rai had experience of over two decades in the educational

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), 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

trust in carrying out educational activities; (f) Sixthly, the CIT(A), it appears, was influenced by the fact that Mrs. Malvika Rai was only a graduate, which cannot be the basis to hold that services rendered were not commensurate with the salary paid. It has not been appreciated that Mrs. Rai had experience of over two decades in the educational

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

trust in carrying out educational activities; (f) Sixthly, the CIT(A), it appears, was influenced by the fact that Mrs. Malvika Rai was only a graduate, which cannot be the basis to hold that services rendered were not commensurate with the salary paid. It has not been appreciated that Mrs. Rai had experience of over two decades in the educational

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

trust in carrying out educational activities; (f) Sixthly, the CIT(A), it appears, was influenced by the fact that Mrs. Malvika Rai was only a graduate, which cannot be the basis to hold that services rendered were not commensurate with the salary paid. It has not been appreciated that Mrs. Rai had experience of over two decades in the educational

ITO (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

trust in carrying out educational activities; (f) Sixthly, the CIT(A), it appears, was influenced by the fact that Mrs. Malvika Rai was only a graduate, which cannot be the basis to hold that services rendered were not commensurate with the salary paid. It has not been appreciated that Mrs. Rai had experience of over two decades in the educational

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

92,460/-. I find that the AO has computed the allowable accumulation amount on the profit and gains derived from the incidental business of the charitable trust whereas the appellant has computed the same on the gross receipts of the trust. I find that the approach adopted by the AO is as per the provisions of section

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

92,460/-. I find that the AO has computed the allowable accumulation amount on the profit and gains derived from the incidental business of the charitable trust whereas the appellant has computed the same on the gross receipts of the trust. I find that the approach adopted by the AO is as per the provisions of section

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

92,69,042\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

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

Trust duly registered under Section 12AA and duly recognized under Section 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

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 12 of I.T. Act, 1961 for the reason that the money collected from students & their guardians, etc., is not the voluntary contribution but the contractual levies & payments. 92. Therefore, the appellant is neither entitled to the benefit of exemption from incidence

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 12 of I.T. Act, 1961 for the reason that the money collected from students & their guardians, etc., is not the voluntary contribution but the contractual levies & payments. 92. Therefore, the appellant is neither entitled to the benefit of exemption from incidence

G D EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE- 1, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

section 12 of I.T. Act, 1961 for the reason that the money collected from students & their guardians, etc., is not the voluntary contribution but the contractual levies & payments. 92. Therefore, the appellant is neither entitled to the benefit of exemption from incidence

ACIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. THE SCIENTIFIC & EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT SOCIETY, GURGAON

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

92,954/-. Out of the above five properties, assessee-society applied the accumulated income of Rs.7,22,67,210/- accumulated in A.Y. 2007-2008 for purchase of Sadhrana, Gopalpura, Lohari properties meant for educational purposes. The Ld. CIT(A) treated the property at village Sadhrana as used for charitable/educational purposes based on the evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) applied Section