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

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT bargain, question of having accrual or receipt of ‘capitation fees’ does not arise. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, there is not even a single penny of cash recovered during the search proceedings conducted on the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan which belonged to the Assessee trust. Admittedly, cash recovered from Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT bargain, question of having accrual or receipt of ‘capitation fees’ does not arise. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, there is not even a single penny of cash recovered during the search proceedings conducted on the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan which belonged to the Assessee trust. Admittedly, cash recovered from Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT bargain, question of having accrual or receipt of ‘capitation fees’ does not arise. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, there is not even a single penny of cash recovered during the search proceedings conducted on the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan which belonged to the Assessee trust. Admittedly, cash recovered from Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT bargain, question of having accrual or receipt of ‘capitation fees’ does not arise. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, there is not even a single penny of cash recovered during the search proceedings conducted on the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan which belonged to the Assessee trust. Admittedly, cash recovered from Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during

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

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT bargain, question of having accrual or receipt of ‘capitation fees’ does not arise. 12. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that, there is not even a single penny of cash recovered during the search proceedings conducted on the said Sh. V. Mathiyalgan which belonged to the Assessee trust. Admittedly, cash recovered from Sh. V. Mathiyalgan during

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

undisclosed income is not sustainable. According to the Assessee its income was entirely exempt under Section 10(22) of the Act and hence it was not required to file a return. Section 139(1) of the Act enjoins every person to file a return of income if the income for which the person is assessable under the Act exceeds

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

income earned from undisclosed sources in the hands of the assessee trust. 21. On 27.10.2017, the ld. Pr. CIT passed an order, wherein the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act was cancelled since inception on the ground that assessee trust is allegedly involved in nefarious activities for inducting of fresh batch of students for academic session without requisite infrastructure

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

undisclosed source and added u/s 68/111BBC of the Income Tax Act. (Addition Rs. 15,60,77,000/-)” 10. Further, from the relevant part of first appellate order we note that the ld CIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee and confirmation remaining part of addition amounting to Rs. M/s. Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust

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)

undisclosed income of the Appellant Trust when it had the resources to give loan of Rs.4,95,000/-. The following observations of the AO in the remark column are factually and legally incorrect: "On perusal of entries in his Bank A/c it was found that there almost entries which only routed from here and there ". From the above observations

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

undisclosed income of the assessee was issued. The\nassessee replies as follows:\n“The source for the cash deposits fee receipts out of IPD/OPD collections and\ncollege fee received from students as per receipt issued the same is offered as\nincome of the trust in the return of income.\npage 3\nITA No.1427/Del/2023 & CO 58/Del/2023\nSantosh Trust

ITO(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S CALOREX FOUNDATION,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

undisclosed income and consequently made the addition. 6. The assessee challenged the assessment order before Ld. CIT(A) by way of appeal which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 24.03.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 7. The Ld. D.R. challenging the appellate order, contended that this

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

charitable trust carrying on activities in the field of education. It is a part of Santosh Group, which is also engaged in the field of education in Medical, Dental, Para-medical and other courses. For AY 2007-08, assessee filed its return of income on 31st October, 2007 4. stating that it has excess of expenditure over income amounting

VISHWADHARMAYATAN TRUST vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

charitable activity (k) The purported donations of Mr. Khasoggi, Mr. Rakesh Saxena, Mr. Som Chai Chawla and Mr. Rajiv Lulla were in fact unexplained since it was Mr. Chandra Swami‟s own money which has been brought into the Trust in the form of donations. There were other several similar donations as well. The total undisclosed income

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

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

charitable trust, viz. the appellant Trust. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate proceedings got totally vitiated as the remand report was not provided to the appellant trust to furnish its comments. 13. That the Appellant craves to leave to add / alter any / all grounds of appeal before or at the time

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal

LAKSHYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable trust assessed as Association of Persons, running an educational institute, filed its return of income on 12.10.2010 showing total income of Rs. Nil. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee has obtained unsecured loan of Rs. 30 lakhs from M/s. Atoll Vyapaar Pvt ltd, Kolkata, and West Bengal during the financial year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely." (emphasis supplied) Addition based on statement u/s 132(4) is not sustainable - judicial precedents In Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi vs. CTT: 328 ITR 411 (Guj) Stiree Ganesh Trading Company vs. CIT 257 CTR 159 (Jhar) CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal: 369 ITR 171 (AP) CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal