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

c)(ii) is important and refers to only that part of income which goes to the benefit of specified persons. Further, similar treatment should be given in respect of cases covered under clause (d) of section 13(2) providing for disallowance

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

c)(ii) is important and refers to only that part of income which goes to the benefit of specified persons. Further, similar treatment should be given in respect of cases covered under clause (d) of section 13(2) providing for disallowance

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

c)(ii) is important and refers to only that part of income which goes to the benefit of specified persons. Further, similar treatment should be given in respect of cases covered under clause (d) of section 13(2) providing for disallowance

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

c)(ii) is important and refers to only that part of income which goes to the benefit of specified persons. Further, similar treatment should be given in respect of cases covered under clause (d) of section 13(2) providing for disallowance

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

JAN KALYAN SAMITI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanjan Kalyan Samiti Vs. Ito Ward Exemption A-48, Chander Nagar Sahibabad, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad 201002 (Pan: Aaatj5583B)

disallowance u/s 13(2)(e) of the Act of Rs. 69,00,000/-. 13. Aggrieved with the above order assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC Delhi and filed a detailed submissions which are reproduced in the impugned 7 order. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and findings in the assessment order he proceeded to sustain the addition made

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

c) IILM Early College at Lodhi Road. 6. The Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 disclosing nil income. The said return was picked up for scrutiny and the proceedings culminated in the assessment order dated 26.12.2011 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 7. The registration granted to the Assessee under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

c) IILM Early College at Lodhi Road. 6. The Assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 on 29.09.2009 disclosing nil income. The said return was picked up for scrutiny and the proceedings culminated in the assessment order dated 26.12.2011 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. 7. The registration granted to the Assessee under Section

ACIT, MEERUT vs. M/S. SPACE AGE RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

c) read with section 13(2) has triggered in the case of the assessee. In the result the ground No. 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed. 20. Coming to ground No. 2(a) and 2(b) which is against granting of advance to the contractor for the construction of the institute building was considered by the Assessing

NIRALA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through

M/S. NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S NIRALA HOUSING PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the five appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

c. Departmental Representative as DR d. Dated as dtd. e. Income Tax Act as I.T. Act f. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as ITAT g. Learned as Ld. h. Under Section as U/s i. Nirala Housing Pvt. Ltd. as NHPL j. Nirala Developers Pvt. Ltd. as NDPL (2) For the sake of convenience, these appeals are being hereby disposed off through

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)-EXEMPTION, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD LABORATORIES (INDIA) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

section 13(1)(c). In the said case, Commissioner (Appeals) as well as Tribunal opined that having regard to fair market value of property, rent paid was not excessive - Moreover, rent had been valued as per prevailing rate fixed for purpose of stamp duty. In view of the facts discussed above and judicial precedents ches supra, it is held that

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules"), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares'for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

CIT vs. SELECT HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT LTD

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the said rules"), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares'for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies

MAXPAK INVESTMENT LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of as above

disallowed was restored to the assessing officer to be recomputed in terms of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the said rules”), which was held to be retrospective. 5. As regards Question 1, it has been contended on behalf of the assessees that holding of shares for acquiring and retaining control of operating companies