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

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

disallowance of income would not arise. In other words, once\nthe registration is withdrawn, then the expression provided in Section\n13(1)(c) of the Act that such part of the diverted income shall get\ntaxed becomes otiose. That situation would never arise since the entire\nexemption would be denied once the registration is cancelled. Hence we\nare convinced that

RAM CHAMELI CHADHA VISHWAS GIRLS COLLEGE SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ACIT CIRCLE EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

disallowing the appeal and confirming the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Because the order(s) appealed against are contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/ all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the appeal

HCL HONG KONG SAR LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi.

disallowing the appeal and confirming the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Because the order(s) appealed against are contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/ all of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the appeal

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

P D MEMORIAL TRUST,DELHI vs. DLC-CA-2, RANGE- 48, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

disallowing the benefits of section 11. 7 Computing total income which is illegal, unjust and against the facts of the case i 8. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

DILEEP KUMAR GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1, DELHI vs. M/S BIO-RAD LABORATORIES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

1 Year B.Ed. program for those who have completed the equivalent of 4 Year multidisciplinary Bachelor's Degrees or who have obtained a Master's degree in a specialty and wish to become a subject teacher in that specialty.  As per provision of Section 12 of NCTE Act, 1993 it shall be the duty of the Council to take

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE- 1,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3886/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3887/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Maa Sharda Educational Society, Vs Addl. Cit, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Range-1, No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Dcit, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtm9201E Assessee By: Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2022

disallowing the exemption of above said donation u/s 11(1)(d) to assess the total income at Rs. 63,34,000/-. 8. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that since the assessee society is not registered u/s 12AA, the donations are chargeable to tax. 9. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

MAA SHARDA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3886/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 3887/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Maa Sharda Educational Society, Vs Addl. Cit, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Range-1, No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Dcit, Circle-1, Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtm9201E Assessee By: Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing:09.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.04.2022

disallowing the exemption of above said donation u/s 11(1)(d) to assess the total income at Rs. 63,34,000/-. 8. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that since the assessee society is not registered u/s 12AA, the donations are chargeable to tax. 9. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

1, wherein the CBDT has elaborated on the scope of the said amendment, in the following words: “3.The newly amended section 2(15) will apply only to the entities whose purpose is ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’ i.e. the fourth limb of definition of ‘charitable purpose’ contained in Section 2(15). Hence, such entities will

MMENTAL RESEARCH SOCIETY (REGD),NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD EXEMPTION 1(4), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 12A(1)(ba) of the Act and exemption has been denied ignoring the Circular F.No. 173/193/2019-ITA-I dated. 23.04.2019 issued by the CBDT in this regard. (iii) That learned Addl/JCIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the above said action of AO(CPC) despite the fact that the Auditor has conducted the Audit and issued

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

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.

BA]AJ, the Trustee of GOPURI CHARITABLE TRUST, the Appellant, do hereby declare that what is stated above is to the best of my knowledge and information.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, issued intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein the deduction of Rs. 52,00,000/- claimed