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. 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

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. 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

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Section 13(1)(c)(ii) read with 13(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2. The assessee is a society which was set up on or about 24th June, 2002. Its office was initially located at c/o Maruti Udyog Limited, 11th Floor, Jeevan Prakash, 25 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110 001. The persons desirous of setting

CIT vs. GS PHARMBUTOR PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

House Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai, Sir, LPA 134/2013 Page 12 of 60 Please refer to your passport application dated 22.07.2008, on the basis of which you were issued passport bearing No. Z-1784222 dated 30.07.2008 by this office. It is informed by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai that a complaint dated 16.9.2010 under section 13 of FEMA

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

13(3) of the Act and denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the action of the AO for issuing the notice u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 19. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available

ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (E), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 761/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Anand Education Society, Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax(E) 30, Community Centre, Ashok Trust Circle-Ii, Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

13(3) of the Act and denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the action of the AO for issuing the notice u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. 19. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13) of the Act. Further, if section 153(1) of the Act were to apply only to cases of non-eligible assessees, then, in that situation, the said section would have read as under: ―No order of assessment ……….. other than an assessment completed in pursuance of directions of the DRP … …. (words inserted) shall be made under section 143 or section

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

13) of the Act. Further, if section 153(1) of the Act were to apply only to cases of non-eligible assessees, then, in that situation, the said section would have read as under: ―No order of assessment ……….. other than an assessment completed in pursuance of directions of the DRP … …. (words inserted) shall be made under section 143 or section

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

house no.C-3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP); commercial shop no. SS-14, Gulmohar Complex, Section 15, Noida (UP); Factory Land & Building at A-43, Section-8, Noida, UP; Land & Building (Two storeyed) Industrial Shed and Machineries, situated at plot no. 350, Section 3, Phase-II, Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, Haryana; Agricultural Land (7.35 acre), Khata no. 28, 55/109, Maujapur

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

house no.C-3/275, Vipul Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP); commercial shop no. SS-14, Gulmohar Complex, Section 15, Noida (UP); Factory Land & Building at A-43, Section-8, Noida, UP; Land & Building (Two storeyed) Industrial Shed and Machineries, situated at plot no. 350, Section 3, Phase-II, Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, Haryana; Agricultural Land (7.35 acre), Khata no. 28, 55/109, Maujapur

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

3) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer had accepted the agreement between the parties is not violative of section 13 of the Act; that the property Chanakya Puri was not occupied till December 2009, lying vacant prior thereto; and that there had to be uniformity in treatment and consistency of approach when the facts and circumstances were identical

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

3) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer had accepted the agreement between the parties is not violative of section 13 of the Act; that the property Chanakya Puri was not occupied till December 2009, lying vacant prior thereto; and that there had to be uniformity in treatment and consistency of approach when the facts and circumstances were identical

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

3) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer had accepted the agreement between the parties is not violative of section 13 of the Act; that the property Chanakya Puri was not occupied till December 2009, lying vacant prior thereto; and that there had to be uniformity in treatment and consistency of approach when the facts and circumstances were identical

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

3) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer had accepted the agreement between the parties is not violative of section 13 of the Act; that the property Chanakya Puri was not occupied till December 2009, lying vacant prior thereto; and that there had to be uniformity in treatment and consistency of approach when the facts and circumstances were identical

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

3) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer had accepted the agreement between the parties is not violative of section 13 of the Act; that the property Chanakya Puri was not occupied till December 2009, lying vacant prior thereto; and that there had to be uniformity in treatment and consistency of approach when the facts and circumstances were identical

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

3) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer had accepted the agreement between the parties is not violative of section 13 of the Act; that the property Chanakya Puri was not occupied till December 2009, lying vacant prior thereto; and that there had to be uniformity in treatment and consistency of approach when the facts and circumstances were identical

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

3) of the Act, learned Assessing Officer had accepted the agreement between the parties is not violative of section 13 of the Act; that the property Chanakya Puri was not occupied till December 2009, lying vacant prior thereto; and that there had to be uniformity in treatment and consistency of approach when the facts and circumstances were identical