ACIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA INTERNATIONAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

2(15) of I.T. Act read with 3rd proviso to Section 143(3) of I.T. Act was invoked and exemption U/s 10(23C)(iv) was denied to the assessee. Further, out of assessee’s claim for depreciation

ITO (E), DELHI vs. ALL INDIAN FINE ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. R. K. Pandaita No. 1806/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer(E), Vs All India Fine Arts & Crafts Trust Ward-1(1), Society, 1, Rafi Marg, Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaata7840E Assessee By : Sh. Rajan Malik, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing :29.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2019 Order Per R. K. Panda:

Section 2(15) of the Act and CBDT Circular No. 11/2008 dated 19.12.2008, the Assessing Officer held that the activities of the assessee society is not for charitable purpose and therefore, the income of the assessee is taxable. He noted that 3 All Indian Fine Arts & Crafts Society the assessee during the year under consideration has derived income under

ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. SONDHI CHARITABLE HOSPITAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed

depreciation on assets purchased during the year: Rs. 3,00,949/- Total Application of Income Rs. 3,00,90,296/- Rs. 2,95,79,570/- Add: Amount as per Section 69 Deemed Income Rs. 14,000/- Deemed income Rs. 2,95,93,570/- 2.1 It has been noted by the Assessing officer in the assessment order that the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Ay: 2009-10

Section, First Floor, New Delhi Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 (PAN: AABCB5576G) AY: 2009-10 AY: 2005-06 ACIT, vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Circle 2(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of hearing: 15.02.2016 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2016 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. FUTURZ NEXT SERVICES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

15 The learned Authorized Representative reiterated the same facts as stated before the learned CIT (Appeals) at para 6.2 of his order. In the alternative, he also submitted that while calculating the depreciation the provisions of Section 50C of the Act does not apply, but the actual value of consideration received of Rs. 2

M/S. ALL INDIA FINE ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 2(15) of the Act. The AO noted that the society had recovered maintenance charges of Rs. 14,08,110/- from the various artists and had also earned Rs. 20,00,000/- from sale of art objects. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to disallow the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and brought

M/S. ALL INDIA FINE ARTS & CRAFTS SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 2(15) of the Act. The AO noted that the society had recovered maintenance charges of Rs. 14,08,110/- from the various artists and had also earned Rs. 20,00,000/- from sale of art objects. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to disallow the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act and brought

HERO FINCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 11(1), DELHI, C.R. BUILDING

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

depreciation is justified and the same is\nconfirmed. Ground nos. 8 to 11 of the appeal are dismissed.\n12.\nGround nos. 12 to 20 of the appeal are against the addition of Rs.418,66,34,625 under\nSection 56 (2)(viib) of the Act.\n12.1\nThe AO noted that during the year the assessee had issued 13492216 no. of equity

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Exemptions), Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Kripalu Bagh, Cgo-Ii, Vs Kankhal, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Haridwar. Ghaziabad. (Pan: Aaatd1114E) Appellant Respondent Department By: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rohti Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2019 O R D E R

15) of the Act. However the case was ultimately decided in favour of the assesee and exemption was granted u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. In the case of Queen's Educational Society, (supra) decision was rendered in the context of allowability of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act on the facts of the case before

ACIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST,, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2010-11 Acit (Exemption) Vs Divya Yog Mandir Trust Circle, Cgo-1 Kripalu Bag, Hapur Road, Kankhal, Haridwar Ghaziabad (Pan Aaatd1114E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

15) of the Act. However the case was ultimately decided in favour of the assesee and exemption was granted u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. In the case of Queen's Educational Society, (supra) decision was rendered in the context of allowability of exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act on the. facts of the case before

ACIT(E)- CIRCLE- 1(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA HABITAT CENTRE , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

depreciation to assessee-society, computed the net taxable income at Rs.4,61,15,838/-. 4. The assessee-society challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A) and explained that activities of the assessee-society can be examined under all the limbs of Section 2

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDIAN OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2011-12] The D.C.I.T. Vs. India Olympic Association Circle - 1 Olympic Bhavan, B -29 Dehradun Qutub Institutional Area New Delhi

section 2(15) of the Act squarely applies and hence does not fall within the category of ‘charitable organization’. Accordingly, benefit u/s 11/12 of the Act was denied to the assessee. 8. On further probe, the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed depreciation

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

15,65,991 (98,16,554) Income from Capital Gain Short Term Capital Gain 14,452 Income from Other Sources 1,31,66,581 Total Income 33,64,479 Less : Unabsorbed Depreciation of A.Y. 2002-03 2,11,69,435 Unabsorbed Depreciation to be carried forward (1,78,04,956) In this computation following details of unabsorbed depreciation were given

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S SOCIETY FOR DRIVER TRAINING INSTITUTE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

2(15). In view of the above, it is inferred that the activity, carried out by the assessee during the period under consideration is not charitable, therefore, the assessee would not be entitle for exemption of income u/s. 11 & 12 of the IT act and the whole of the surplus generated from business activities of the assessee is liable

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

2 or 3(A) of section 11 will not apply in relation to any income of a trust or an institute being profits and gains of business. It doesn't put a restriction that it is applicable to the fourth limbs i.e. object of any public utility. The concession granted in 11 (4A) is restricted to the business which