HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee received a sum of Rs.46,41,028/- towards rentals received in respect of the property of the assessee. On enquiries, learned Assessing Officer came

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee received a sum of Rs.46,41,028/- towards rentals received in respect of the property of the assessee. On enquiries, learned Assessing Officer came

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee received a sum of Rs.46,41,028/- towards rentals received in respect of the property of the assessee. On enquiries, learned Assessing Officer came

ACIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee received a sum of Rs.46,41,028/- towards rentals received in respect of the property of the assessee. On enquiries, learned Assessing Officer came

HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA),NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee received a sum of Rs.46,41,028/- towards rentals received in respect of the property of the assessee. On enquiries, learned Assessing Officer came

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

b) of the Act read with section 13(3) of the Act, it could be seen from the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, during the scrutiny learned Assessing Officer found that the assessee received a sum of Rs.46,41,028/- towards rentals received in respect of the property of the assessee. On enquiries, learned Assessing Officer came

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Housing Organization Vs. Sumangal Sevices (P) Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619. (xii)Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs. Tullow India Operation Ltd., (2005) 13 SCC 789. (xiii)Surya Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 1606. (xiv)Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 363. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos. 1 & 2 – UNION OF INDIA

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. HAMDRD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

b), the burden of showing that the rent charged by the respondent/assessee was not „adequate‟ is on the revenue. Unless the price/rent was such as to shock the conscience of the Court and to hold that it cannot be the reasonable consideration at all, it would not be possible to hold that the transaction is otherwise bereft of adequate consideration

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATIONAL FOUNDATION (INDIA)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

b), the burden of showing that the rent charged by the respondent/assessee was not „adequate‟ is on the revenue. Unless the price/rent was such as to shock the conscience of the Court and to hold that it cannot be the reasonable consideration at all, it would not be possible to hold that the transaction is otherwise bereft of adequate consideration

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 vs. GALGOTIA BOOKS & DEPARTMENT STORE PVT. LTD.

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

B IPC and Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Crl. Appeal No.143/2018 & others Page 14 of 105 26. Upon information from CBI, finding it to be a case of money- laundering, the enforcement directorate registered a case (ECIR no. DLZO/20/2015) on 09.10.2015. On the basis of reasons to believe reduced

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8 vs. SALDI CHITS PVT. LTD.,

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

B IPC and Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Crl. Appeal No.143/2018 & others Page 14 of 105 26. Upon information from CBI, finding it to be a case of money- laundering, the enforcement directorate registered a case (ECIR no. DLZO/20/2015) on 09.10.2015. On the basis of reasons to believe reduced

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANKITECH PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

13. The Special Bench held that the intention behind this provision is to tax dividend in the hands of the shareholders. 14. The Bombay High Court while confirming the aforesaid decision of the Special Bench in the case of Universal Medicare (P.) Ltd. made the analysis this provision in the following manner: ―8. Clause (e) of section 2

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, DELHI vs. SMT. SANGEETA SAWHNEY

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

Housing Board, Haryana). Relevant para from the judgment is as follows:— “13. In the case on hand, it cannot be said that continuance of the proceedings and rendering of awards therein by the Arbitrator after his transfer was in disregard of any provision of law much less mandatory one but, at the highest, in breach of agreement. Therefore, by their

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

13(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to avail exemption under section 11 and 12 of the Act. He, therefore taxed the assessee as AOP and computed the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.1,93,93,48,991/- including therein addition of Rs. 31,20,000/- as income from house property

DCIT(E), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN GRAMEEN SERVICES, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

b), the burden of showing that the rent charged by the respondent/assessee was not “adequate‟ is on the revenue. Unless the price/rent was such as to shock the conscience of the Court and to hold that it cannot be the reasonable consideration at all, it would not be possible to hold that the transaction is otherwise bereft of adequate consideration

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

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

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

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

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

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception

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

house in Green Park, New Delhi. No material has been brought before us to rebut the factual findings of the ld. CIT(A). On consideration of ITA No. 1142/DEL/2011, 2675/DEL/2013, 2871, 2872/DEL/2014 & 1131/DEL/2016 18 the materials on the file, the past record of the society, the year to year services rendered by Mrs. Sudha Tewari from its inception