MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 dated 08.02.2024 seeking admission of additional ground which read as under: “"Re: Disallowance of Deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs 12,01,42,780 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.100

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

1)(d) thereby treating it as property held under the trust. Further, Section 11 envisages that revenue consideration shall be deemed to be income derived from property held under the Trust. Thus, ld. CIT (A) was incorrect in law in holding that contribution received by way of fees from the beneficiaries is not an income from the property held under

PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record

M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PTC INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2013-14 & Asstt. Year 2014-15

Section 37 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 9. That the disallowances made/upheld and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjectures. The additions/disallowances made cannot be justified by any material on record and in any case they are excessive. 10. That the explanation given and the evidence produced, material placed and available on record

SUDHAKAR ARORA,DELHI vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

11. Again, recently Pune ITAT in the case of Cemetile Industries v. ITO [2022] 145 taxmann.com 209 (Pune - Trib.) held that where assesseeemployer deposited amount of employees contribution towards employees' provident fund and employees' state insurance corporation beyond due date stipulated under the respective Acts, disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) was justified. The ITAT further held that adjustment

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

disallowance of the exemption under Section 11 on the ground of violation of Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with Section 13(3). According to him, both in respect of the advances made to APIL and the debit balances in the account of Charanjiv Educational Society, there was a violation of the above statutory provisions disentitling the assessee from

PRABHU SARAN GARG CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 3558/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year 2010-11 Prabhu Saran Garg Charitable Vs. Jcit, Trust, C/O M/S O.P. Sapra & Range-2, Associates, C-763, New Friends Ghaziabad Colony, New Delhi-110025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp9634M Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Girish Kumar Kohali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2022

disallowing exemption claimed. 2. That, learned commissioner of income tax (Appeals) manifestly erred in rejecting the contention that alleged advances made to three 2 Prabhu Saran Garg Charitable Trust unrelated parties are not ‘investment or deposit’ so as to hit by provisions of S. 13(1)(d) of Act as per the settled law. 3. That, learned commissioner of income

TRUTECH CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

D-19, New Delhi Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019 PAN-AABCU4368H 2. 1772/Del/2020 Vikas Publishing House DCIT, 2018-19 Ms. Richa Pvt. Ltd., A-27, 2nd CPC, Chawla, CA Floor, Mohan Co- Bengaluru operative Estate, New Delhi-110044 PAN-AAACV0006A 3. 1831/Del/2020 Tech Auto Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, 2018-19 Sh. Ashwani 103, Pratap Bhawan, CPC, Kumar, CA & Bahadurshah Zafar Bengaluru

TECH AUTO PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

D-19, New Delhi Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019 PAN-AABCU4368H 2. 1772/Del/2020 Vikas Publishing House DCIT, 2018-19 Ms. Richa Pvt. Ltd., A-27, 2nd CPC, Chawla, CA Floor, Mohan Co- Bengaluru operative Estate, New Delhi-110044 PAN-AAACV0006A 3. 1831/Del/2020 Tech Auto Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, 2018-19 Sh. Ashwani 103, Pratap Bhawan, CPC, Kumar, CA & Bahadurshah Zafar Bengaluru

TRUTUFF FACILITY MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

D-19, New Delhi Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019 PAN-AABCU4368H 2. 1772/Del/2020 Vikas Publishing House DCIT, 2018-19 Ms. Richa Pvt. Ltd., A-27, 2nd CPC, Chawla, CA Floor, Mohan Co- Bengaluru operative Estate, New Delhi-110044 PAN-AAACV0006A 3. 1831/Del/2020 Tech Auto Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, 2018-19 Sh. Ashwani 103, Pratap Bhawan, CPC, Kumar, CA & Bahadurshah Zafar Bengaluru

TOSHIBA WATER SOLUTIONS & SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

D-19, New Delhi Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019 PAN-AABCU4368H 2. 1772/Del/2020 Vikas Publishing House DCIT, 2018-19 Ms. Richa Pvt. Ltd., A-27, 2nd CPC, Chawla, CA Floor, Mohan Co- Bengaluru operative Estate, New Delhi-110044 PAN-AAACV0006A 3. 1831/Del/2020 Tech Auto Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, 2018-19 Sh. Ashwani 103, Pratap Bhawan, CPC, Kumar, CA & Bahadurshah Zafar Bengaluru

VIKAS PUBLISHING HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

D-19, New Delhi Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019 PAN-AABCU4368H 2. 1772/Del/2020 Vikas Publishing House DCIT, 2018-19 Ms. Richa Pvt. Ltd., A-27, 2nd CPC, Chawla, CA Floor, Mohan Co- Bengaluru operative Estate, New Delhi-110044 PAN-AAACV0006A 3. 1831/Del/2020 Tech Auto Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, 2018-19 Sh. Ashwani 103, Pratap Bhawan, CPC, Kumar, CA & Bahadurshah Zafar Bengaluru

UTTAM INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

D-19, New Delhi Kalkaji, New Delhi- 110019 PAN-AABCU4368H 2. 1772/Del/2020 Vikas Publishing House DCIT, 2018-19 Ms. Richa Pvt. Ltd., A-27, 2nd CPC, Chawla, CA Floor, Mohan Co- Bengaluru operative Estate, New Delhi-110044 PAN-AAACV0006A 3. 1831/Del/2020 Tech Auto Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, 2018-19 Sh. Ashwani 103, Pratap Bhawan, CPC, Kumar, CA & Bahadurshah Zafar Bengaluru

ORIENT CRAFT LTD. ,DELHI vs. ASST. DIT, CPC , BANGALORE

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 477/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Orient Craft Ltd., Vs Asstt. Dit, C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Cpc, D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco0068M Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022

D-28, South Extension, Bangalore Part-I, New Delhi-110049 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACO0068M Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against

MAGIC AUTO PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 13 , DELHI

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 27/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd., Vs Adit, 7/56, Desh Bandhu Gupta Cpc, Road, Karol Bagh, Central Delhi, Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4873C Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2022

11. In section 43B of the Income-tax Act, after Explanation4, the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:— "Explanation5.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section shall not apply and shall be deemed never to have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which

INDIAN GOLF UNION,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E) WARD 2(3), NEW DELHI

The appeal is dismissed ex parte

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmathe Indian Golf Union Vs. Ito (Exemption) C1/52, 3Rd Floor, Ward 2(3), Hauz Khas Village Road, New Delhi Safdurjang Development Area Pan No. Aaatt3232B (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 13(1 )(d) of Income Tax Act and disallowing exemption U/s 11 of the Income Tax Act. 2. The Hon’ble CIT (A) erred