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(6) of the Act inserted with effect from 1.4.2015 shall operate prospectively with respect to assessment year 2015-2016 only.” 8. Therefore in view of the above two decisions of the Hon’ble high courts, we reverse the finding of the lower authority and direct the Ld. assessing officer to delete the disallowance

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

Sections 11 & 12 cannot be allowed. In response to the show cause notice as to why claim of exemption should not be disallowed, the assessee vide letter dated 23.01.2014, filed a copy of Form 10B, however as per the AO, assessee did not give any explanation. The Assessing Officer on the perusal of the said audit report dated 18.07.2011 observed

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

disallowance of entire Depreciation of Rs. 6,84,73,391/- without any basis treating it as double deduction in view of section 11

M/S. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee with respect to ground No

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishibharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent) Bharti Airtel Ltd, Addl Cit, Bharti Crescent, 1, Vs. Range-2, Cr Building, Ip Nelson Mandela Road, Vaxant Estate, New Delhi Kunj, New Delhi Pan:Aaacb2894G (Appellant) (Respondent)

11. "6. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in disallowing under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, sum of Rs. 5,05,47,21,495 representing

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree School. Accordingly, he disallowed the following

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

section 11 of the Act. 6. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is correct In law to hold that educational trusts or institutions cannot collect fee etc from students and charging of such fee etc. will render the objects of the trusts/institutions as uncharitable. 7. Whether Ld. CIT(A) is justified in law to ignore the principle of application Of income

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

6-7-1984 is reproduced below:- “28.6 It may be noted that new sub-section (1A) inserted in section 161 of the Income-tax Act, which provides for taxation of the entire income received by trusts at the maximum marginal rate is applicable only in the case of private trusts having profits and gains of business

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. From the records we observed that the assessee had produced a movie, for the purpose of advertising and promotion, it had utilized its sister concern to do the same. We observed that the AO had observed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. From the records we observed that the assessee had produced a movie, for the purpose of advertising and promotion, it had utilized its sister concern to do the same. We observed that the AO had observed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SAHARA INDIA MASS COMMUNICATION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. From the records we observed that the assessee had produced a movie, for the purpose of advertising and promotion, it had utilized its sister concern to do the same. We observed that the AO had observed

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

disallowed, as it was not for charitable purpose. The AO, therefore, noted that assessee has violated provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act and consequently the benefit of provisions of section 11(5)(x) of the Act cannot be granted. The AO computed the income of assessee at Rs. 2,22,04,300/- and treated the assessee