RAM SARAN DAS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: -------] Ram Saran Das Kishori Lal Commissioner Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, (Exemption), Room No.24.05, E-2 Block, 24Th Floor, Civic Centre, A-27, Friends Colony East, Vs New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaatr0783P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Arpit Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.11.2025

ac), the Appellant did not hold any valid registration under section 12A(a), the CIT(E) held that the Appellant erred in applying for registration under the said sub-clause and the registration was obtained by the Appellant from the CPC fraudulently. It was submitted that along with the application for registration, the Appellant enclosed note titled "Note

SHAKUNTLAM BAL VIKAS SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ITO WARD EXEMP 2(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2022-23

12A of sub section(i) of clause(ac) of sub clause(1) which was granted for the period A.Y. 2022-2023 to A.Y. 2026-27 and an approval under section 80G sub section (5) clause(i) was also granted. 2.1 The return of the assessee for A.Y. 2022-2023 was filed on 07/11/2022 and the assessee had claimed exemption under

Commissioner of Income Tax – I

disallowed the claim for deduction/exemption of Rs.12,17,41,860/- under Section 10B, as made in the return. He also made additions in alternative. Total 2015:DHC:1179-DB ITA 551/2013 & 553/2013 Page 4 of 30 income of the assessee on the basis of aforesaid addition and other additions was computed at Rs.10,86,14,708/-. 6. The assessee succeeded

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110 per cent of that sum, i.e., Rs. 52,56,197. By no stretch of imagination can s. 14A or r. 8D be interpreted to mean that the entire tax-exempt income is to be disallowed. The window for disallowance is indicated in s. 14A, and is only to the extent of disallowing

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:

disallowed the claim of the assessee u/s 11 for the reason that the assessee has filed the return of income late and not filed Form-10B on time as per the provisions. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and filed detailed submissions before him the same is reproduced below: “5. Submissions

TRILOK SINGH BHANDARI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 2(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman

AC), Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the determination of the income of the appellant trust at Rs.14,31,437/- as against declared Nil income In an intimation dated 9.3.2019 U/S 143(1) of the Act 2. That the order made by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by dismissing the appeal

TRILOK SINGH BHANDARI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD EXEMPTION 2(3), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman

AC), Delhi has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the determination of the income of the appellant trust at Rs.14,31,437/- as against declared Nil income In an intimation dated 9.3.2019 U/S 143(1) of the Act 2. That the order made by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by dismissing the appeal

DEVKI DEVI FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DIT (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: -- Devki Devi Foundation, Vs Dit (Exemptions), Plot No.15, 3Rd Floor, 2, Press Enclave Road, Saket, Aayakar Bhawan, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar District Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaatd5283G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Gaurav Jain, Advocate & Shri Deepesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2011 Of The Dit (Exemptions), Delhi Withdrawing Registration Granted Earlier U/S 12A Of The It Act Since Inception.

Ac is concerned, since provision of free treatment is not a criteria to be eligible for claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act, discussed in detail in the Synopsis. Emphatic reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Civil Services Society

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

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

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

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

disallowance of Rs. 13,80,840/- and Rs.1,03,86,970/- for purchase of land and Rs.42,94,237/- for purchase of Flat, totaling Rs.1,60,62,047/-. 2.1 On further appeal, learned CIT(A) quashed the order of the AO and held that the investments made by the assessee in purchase of land at Village Samaspur, Jhunjhuni and Sikandarabad

M/S ACTIVE SECURITIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

12A, 12AA and 12B are intended merely to indicate the classes of income : the heads do not exhaustively delimit sources from which income arises." It was also held that: "even if an item of income is earned in the course of carrying on a business, it will not necessarily fall within the head "profits and gains of business" within

ACIT E CIRCLE-1(1) NEW DELH, DELHI vs. JEEN FOUNDATION, DELHI

In the result, the grounds raised by the revenue are accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

1)(ac) (i) dated 23.09.2021 was granted for the period from AY 2022- 23 to 2026-27. The registration dated 23.09.2021 has been accorded without any classification of specified limb of charitable purpose. From the information available on record, it is evident that the appellant has never been engaged in any other activities or business other that imparting education

ACIT (E) CIRCLE-1(1) NEW DEHI, DELHI vs. JEEN FOUNDATION, DELHI

In the result, the grounds raised by the revenue are accordingly dismissed

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

1)(ac) (i) dated 23.09.2021 was granted for the period from AY 2022- 23 to 2026-27. The registration dated 23.09.2021 has been accorded without any classification of specified limb of charitable purpose. From the information available on record, it is evident that the appellant has never been engaged in any other activities or business other that imparting education

GOPURI CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

AC OF THE ACT RS. 45,58,990/- : 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in confirming the denial of Deduction claimed by the Appellant for a sum of Rs. 4^5,58,990/- under Chapter VI-A / Section 80GGA read with Section

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 03, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of only Rs. 32,50,000/- is confirmed. 133. Coming to the item of expenditure of Rs. 54,36,000/- in the nature of referral commission which is appearing at Sl. No. 5 in the above table. The said amount has been paid by the appellant company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of only Rs. 32,50,000/- is confirmed. 133. Coming to the item of expenditure of Rs. 54,36,000/- in the nature of referral commission which is appearing at Sl. No. 5 in the above table. The said amount has been paid by the appellant company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, DELHI vs. BHUSHAN DUA, NEW DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of only Rs. 32,50,000/- is confirmed. 133. Coming to the item of expenditure of Rs. 54,36,000/- in the nature of referral commission which is appearing at Sl. No. 5 in the above table. The said amount has been paid by the appellant company

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2018-19 A.Y. 2019-20

disallowance of Rs. 6,00,000/-. Thus, the addition to the tune of only Rs. 32,50,000/- is confirmed. 133. Coming to the item of expenditure of Rs. 54,36,000/- in the nature of referral commission which is appearing at Sl. No. 5 in the above table. The said amount has been paid by the appellant company