P D MEMORIAL TRUST,DELHI vs. DLC-CA-2, RANGE- 48, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

delay in filing/uploading the audit report in form 10B. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: “5.1 The CPC has issued a communication to the appellant on 06-Oct- 2022 stating that The Trust or Institution registered u/s 12A/12AA/12AB has not E-fled the Audit Report in Form 108 one month prior to the due date

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

MANOJ KUMAR SINGH,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarmanoj Kumar Singh Vs. Dcit, S-17, Ground Floor, Central Circle-28 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh Central Circle-28 S-17, Ground Floor, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi- 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in dispute is condoned and appeal of the revenue stands admitted. 2. Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The preliminary and legal issue argued before us was questioning the approval given by the Ld. JCIT, Range- 8, Delhi to the Draft Assessment Order, and as per the contentions of Ld. AR the approval was given u/s 153D

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH , NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarmanoj Kumar Singh Vs. Dcit, S-17, Ground Floor, Central Circle-28 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Manoj Kumar Singh Central Circle-28 S-17, Ground Floor, New Delhi Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi- 110 017 Pan: Aaxps2824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

delay in dispute is condoned and appeal of the revenue stands admitted. 2. Heard the rival contentions and perused the records. The preliminary and legal issue argued before us was questioning the approval given by the Ld. JCIT, Range- 8, Delhi to the Draft Assessment Order, and as per the contentions of Ld. AR the approval was given u/s 153D

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

12A) of\nsection 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account\nmaintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was\ninserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic\nrecord" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000.\nUnder Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been\ndefined to include data, record or data

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

12A) of\nsection 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account\nmaintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was\ninserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic\nrecord\" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000.\nUnder Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been\ndefined to include data, record or data

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

12A and 80G of the Act lt is not necessary, not ls it proper, lor us to dccicle the culpability or otherwise of A I( Sikri wiro was the Treasurer of thc assessce society. All that we need to examine is whether the Tribr-rnal had valtcl tttalcrtals before it on the basis of which it could have reasonably corne

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

12A and 80G of the Act lt is not necessary, not ls it proper, lor us to dccicle the culpability or otherwise of A I( Sikri wiro was the Treasurer of thc assessce society. All that we need to examine is whether the Tribr-rnal had valtcl tttalcrtals before it on the basis of which it could have reasonably corne

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

12A and 80G of the Act lt is not necessary, not ls it proper, lor us to dccicle the culpability or otherwise of A I( Sikri wiro was the Treasurer of thc assessce society. All that we need to examine is whether the Tribr-rnal had valtcl tttalcrtals before it on the basis of which it could have reasonably corne

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

12A and 80G of the Act lt is not necessary, not ls it proper, lor us to dccicle the culpability or otherwise of A I( Sikri wiro was the Treasurer of thc assessce society. All that we need to examine is whether the Tribr-rnal had valtcl tttalcrtals before it on the basis of which it could have reasonably corne

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

12A and 80G of the Act lt is not necessary, not ls it proper, lor us to dccicle the culpability or otherwise of A I( Sikri wiro was the Treasurer of thc assessce society. All that we need to examine is whether the Tribr-rnal had valtcl tttalcrtals before it on the basis of which it could have reasonably corne

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. VISHWA JAGRITI MISSION

12A and 80G of the Act lt is not necessary, not ls it proper, lor us to dccicle the culpability or otherwise of A I( Sikri wiro was the Treasurer of thc assessce society. All that we need to examine is whether the Tribr-rnal had valtcl tttalcrtals before it on the basis of which it could have reasonably corne

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION vs. DOGRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, GROUND FLOOR

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Vs. Dogra Educational Society Exemption, Ward-1(3), Ground Floor, 416 Bhera Room No.2419, 24Th Floor, Enclave, Pachim Vihar E-2 Floor, Civic Centre Delhi – 110058 Delhi – 110001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatd4135D Appellant .. Respondent

ba) of the Act viz.,(i) The person in receipt of the income has furnished return of income for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4A) of P a g e | 3 Dogra Educational Society(AY: 2018-19) section 139, within the time allowed under that section and (ii) The appellant also failed to furnish Form

SHREE BANKEY BIHARI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, CPC, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him the same is reproduced below:

12A(1)(ac)(i) and 80G(5)(i) of the Income Tax Act and claimed exemption u/s 11 whereas the Ld CIT Appeals has assumed that the assessee is a co-operative society and has claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) i.c. deduction in respect of interest received from deposits kept in co-operative banks. The appeal should