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.

11 (5) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee-society claimed investment in 87.48% but the A.O. calculated at 76.53%. The AO has not allowed the depreciation as per several reported decisions. The AO has allowed depreciation in preceding A.Y. 2006-2007 under section 143(3

RICHMOND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. DCIT/ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

3) to the\nfifteenth proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act that where a reference,\nunder the first proviso to sub-section (3) of section 143, has been made on or before\nthe 31st March, 2022 by the Assessing Officer for the contravention of certain\nprovisions of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act, such references

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)

depreciation) Addition during the year is shown Rs. 32347187/- Total value as on 31.3.2009 shown by assessee is Rs. 15,25,57,0847-. The above advance given for Rs. 2,60,51,0007- is not included in the cost of construction. The above advance is not allowable under section 11(5) of the Act in view of the fact that

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 11(1) and 11(1)(b) of the Act. 2. The ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing double deduction on account of capital expenditure on purchase of fixed assets and then depreciation on same assets as per computation of income of assessee. 3

MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

The appeal is disposed of

depreciation on assets purchased by the Assessee by application of its income that was exempt under Section 11 of the Act. 3

CONFRERE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

11. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the following additions which are impugned in this appeal: a. Rs. 19,40,343/- on account of surplus claimed as application of income b. Rs. 5,44,011/-on account of disallowing the claim of depreciation on fixed assets 12. That

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CHARANJIV CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result both aspects of the first substantial question of law

Bench: It, Two By The Assessee Relating To The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08 & One By The Revenue Relating To The Assessment Year 2006-07. In Other Words, In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2006-07, There Were Cross- 2014:Dhc:1467-Db

11 on the ground that by advancing monies to Charanjiv Educational Society the assessee committed a violation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(2) and Section 13(3) of the Act. 2014:DHC:1467-DB ITA Nos.321/2013, 322/2013 & 323/2013 Page 34 of 40 29. It is now necessary to examine the other two questions

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) erred in making a disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GOVIND NAGAR SUGAR LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

3) also refers to the same provision contemplating for filing of the return within the time allowed under section 139(1) and thus the determination of the loss is permissible when the return is filed within the stipulated time under section 139(1). There is no reference to the provision for carry forward of depreciation or investment allowance in section

RAMA DEVI MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,NOIDA vs. JCIT, RANGE-2, NOIDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2010-11

3. Whether Ld.CIT(A) is justified in law to import the concept of 'pure charity' in place of words "Charitable purpose" when there is no such requirement in Sections 11, 12, &13 of the Act. 4. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is correct in law to issue enhancement notice based on arbitrary and imaginary propositions of law ignoring actual provisions

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

3) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 4. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the benefit of Section 11 & 12 of the Act ignoring the provision of Section 13(1) which provide that even if there is a single instance of violation of Section 13(1), the trust

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INSTITUTE OF MARKETING & MANAGEMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

3) of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. 4. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the benefit of Section 11 & 12 of the Act ignoring the provision of Section 13(1) which provide that even if there is a single instance of violation of Section 13(1), the trust

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

3. In brief, the assessee is a Trust registered under section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). It e-filed its return for AY 2016-17 on 15.10.2016 disclosing income at ‘nil’ after claiming its entire income as except under section 11 ad 12 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny. Statutory notice(s) were

DAYA NAND PUSHPA DEVI CHARITABLE TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2010-11

section 11(4A) and disallowed the exemption claimed with respect to the profit earned from hostel activities. Besides, he also disallowed the depreciation claimed with respect to hostels. 3

M/S CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

section 43(1) ITA No.316/Del/2013 Building 74,25,264 36,68,570 66,00,000 66,00,000 Leasehold -------- 7,098 -------- ----- improvements Plant and Machinery 3,71,66,624 1,66,59,047 89,66,000 89,66,000 Computers 82,020 61,446 69,499 2,88,399 Furniture and Fixture 3,76,317 3,63,553 3