EFFORT FOUDATION (N.G.O),DELHI vs. ITO , DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1204/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Effort Foundation (N.G.O.), Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 233, Pocket-10, Nasirpura, Exemption Ward-1(1), Dwarka, New Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaae4486D Assessee By: An Adjournment Application Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2025 Order

disallowed the assessee’s section 11 exemption claim on account of the fact that it had filed it’s return on 14.03.2019 i.e. very well beyond the due date thereof coming to 30.09.2018. It is noticed in this factual backdrop that the tribunal’s recent order in Indian Medical Association Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 767/PUN/2025 dated 16.06.2025 that even

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI vs. AL AMMAR FROZEN FOODS EXPORTS PVT. LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross\nobjection filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

12A, section 44AB, section 440A, section 50B,\nsection 80-1A, section 80-1B, section 80-le, section .80-\n10, section 80JJM, section 80LA, section 92E, section\n115JB or section 115W1/ or to give a notice under clause\n(a) of subsection (2) of section 11 of the Act, the\nassessee shall furnish the same electronically. The\nassessee failed

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

1] 15. As for ground no. 16 to 19 that Appellant is engaged in business activity / and thus hit by Explanation (a) & (b) to section 12AB(4), ld counsel submitted that Board Resolution dated 04.09.2004 was passed by the Board of Trustees of the Appellant resolving that due to loss in running of the hospital for last one year

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

12A of the Act on 28.05.1976. In respect of the assessment year 2006-07, it filed a return of income declaring Rs.Nil as its income. On 31.10.2006 this return was processed under Section 143(1). Subsequently a scrutiny of the return was initiated and notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. A sum of Rs.8

ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowing the deduction claimed by the Assessee and making the addition, mainly relied upon the facts that the report in form No. 10CCB, which was filed on 17.04.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on dated 13.04.2019, was not in possession of the Assessee as it was neither filed earlier nor along with the return of income

ITO WARD - 23(3), NEW DELHI vs. SHREE BHAWANI POWER PROJECTS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

disallowing the deduction claimed by the Assessee and making the addition, mainly relied upon the facts that the report in form No. 10CCB, which was filed on 17.04.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act on dated 13.04.2019, was not in possession of the Assessee as it was neither filed earlier nor along with the return of income

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, we must also add that the prescribed authority would also necessarily have to examine the manner in which the affairs of the university or an educational institution have been conducted in the past for the purposes of considering whether the Assessee qualifies the threshold requirement of Section

JCIT(OSD), RANGE-10, NEW DELHI , ITO C.R. BUILDING vs. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION CORPORATION LTD. , KASTURBA NAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue in the AY 2020-21 and AY\n2021-22 are dismissed

B for computing\ndisallowance under clause (ii) of rule 8D (2).\n24. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We\nobserved that the assessee had earned exempt income and suo motto\ndisallowed 1% of the average investment on which the assessee earned the\nexempt income whereas the AO considered the average of total investment\nheld by the assessee

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

b l a n k ) K G 2 5 . 0 0 3 0 5 0 . 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 ” X 3 6 ” 4 2 0 6 & G e n e r a l Ma r t 37. On being inquired by the bench, the ld. counsel strenously took 27 I.T.A. No.2313/Del/2022

DSOB CLASS OF 64 CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms stated above

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

12A(b) of the Act (ii) disallowing the statutory deduction of Rs 57,219/- claimed by the assessee under Section 11(1

BSC C&C JOINT VENTURE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-61(1),, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

12A) ------------------------ (13) -------------------------- Explanation. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a business referred to in sub-section (4) which is in the nature of a works 12 contract awarded by any person (including the Central or State Government) and executed by the undertaking or enterprise referred

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

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

disallowance of the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act. The assessee is a registered society registered under Societies Registration Act 1860 vide registration no. S-13904 of 1983 dated 05 October 1983 and is running a primary school recognised by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The assessee is registered under section 12A read with section 12AA(1)(b

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data