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

disallowance in respect of services of the trust given to specified persons. 43. As relied upon by the learned counsel, the coordinate bench decision in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO (supra) has also upheld the same proposition that in case of any alleged violation under section 13, the benefit of section 11 would not be available

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

disallowance in respect of services of the trust given to specified persons. 43. As relied upon by the learned counsel, the coordinate bench decision in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO (supra) has also upheld the same proposition that in case of any alleged violation under section 13, the benefit of section 11 would not be available

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

disallowance in respect of services of the trust given to specified persons. 43. As relied upon by the learned counsel, the coordinate bench decision in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO (supra) has also upheld the same proposition that in case of any alleged violation under section 13, the benefit of section 11 would not be available

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

disallowance in respect of services of the trust given to specified persons. 43. As relied upon by the learned counsel, the coordinate bench decision in the case of Span Foundation versus ITO (supra) has also upheld the same proposition that in case of any alleged violation under section 13, the benefit of section 11 would not be available

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

disallowed depreciation on certain assets on the ground that the cost of those assets was allowed as application of the income of the trust for charitable purposes and allowance of depreciation of those assets would amount to double allowance which is not permissible. 8. There was an appeal to the CIT (Appeals) in which the assessee challenged the findings recorded

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

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

9. 11. Hence we hold that invocation of Clause (e ) of Explanation to Section 12AB(4) of the Act without any adverse finding on the genuineness or nature of the Assessee Society's activities is wholly misconceived and action of the Learned PCIT in this regard is rejected. 10. The Learned PCIT had invoked Clause (a) of Explanation to Section

ASIA SATELLITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO. LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowing provisions thereof would be inapplicable. 23. As regards the levy of interest under Sections 234A and 234B was concerned, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be liable to pay interest under Section 234A. However, with regard to levy of interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal held that if the receipt of income by the appellant was of such

MR. SANJEEV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 3 and 4 With respect to the disallowance of export commission of the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishisanjeev Gupta, Vs. Addl. Cit, E-31, Kamla Nagar, Range-20, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Ahcpg7326A (Appellant) (Respondent)

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer towards export commission paid by the assessee to the non-resident was rightly deleted.' 16. When the transaction does not atract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the Revenue has no case and the Tax Case

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)

disallow the interest on mere suspicion and surmises particularly when the Appellant Trust had duly proved the source of loans/deposits.. 10.2.6. In my considered opinion, there was absolutely no contravention of provisions of section 13(3) of the I.T. Act as alleged by the AO. Therefore, there was no justification to make disallowance/addition of Rs.20,50,491/- which

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

disallowances are made, the mere absence of the discussion of the provisions of Section 80IB(13) read with Section 80IA(9

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)

9 of 59 deducted there from in the earlier years as well and the Revenue did not draw any adverse inference. In other words, no disallowance on this account was ever made in the past. It is for the first time in assessment year 2007-08, i.e. the immediately preceding assessment year that disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s

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

SYSTEMS AMERICA (INDIA) LTD. vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

9. That the AO in compliance to the directions of the CIT(A) has passed an order under section 250 of the Act allowing assessee deduction under section 80HHE amounting to Rs. 5,08,91,310/-. That the deduction allowed by the AO under Section 80HHE is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the assessee

ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1) vs. SYSTEM AMERICA INDIA LTD.,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

9. That the AO in compliance to the directions of the CIT(A) has passed an order under section 250 of the Act allowing assessee deduction under section 80HHE amounting to Rs. 5,08,91,310/-. That the deduction allowed by the AO under Section 80HHE is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the assessee

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 on Remaining Amount (Rs. 4,41,315):Even if the Rs. 9,72,000 is accepted as a group company payment and excluded, the balance amount (Rs. 14,13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS under section

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 on Remaining Amount (Rs. 4,41,315):Even if the Rs. 9,72,000 is accepted as a group company payment and excluded, the balance amount (Rs. 14,13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS under section

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 on Remaining Amount (Rs. 4,41,315):Even if the Rs. 9,72,000 is accepted as a group company payment and excluded, the balance amount (Rs. 14,13,315 - Rs. 9,72,000 = Rs. 4,41,315) does attract TDS under section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION

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

9. Apart from the above, the AO also found that the Assessee was running institutions, which were catering to an elite class of society with the sole purpose of making profit. Apart from the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act in respect of salaries paid to Ms Rai, the AO also added expenditure incurred by the Assessee

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION

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

9. Apart from the above, the AO also found that the Assessee was running institutions, which were catering to an elite class of society with the sole purpose of making profit. Apart from the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act in respect of salaries paid to Ms Rai, the AO also added expenditure incurred by the Assessee