JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (E), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

charitable trust of the Institutions. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 19/2/2011 at an income of Rs. 19,02,18,230/-, with reference to the assessment order, the penalty proceedings u/s 271

DEHRADUN PUBLIC SCHOOL,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result ITA No. 1387/del/2016 for assessment year 2011 – 12 filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

u/s 271 (1) (c) is illegal and bad in law. 9. The Assessing Officer/CIT(A) has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Appellant to place the evidence/details on record to substantiate its claim during the assessment proceedings. 10. That, the penalty proceedings have been initiated and imposed without any specific charges, hence, the same

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S DLF LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly solitary ground of appeal and appeal of the learned assessing officer is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narsimha Charythe Asst Commissioner Of Dlf Ltd Vs. Income Tax (Formerly Known As Dlf Circle – 10 (1) Universal Ltd) New Delhi Dlf Centre, Sansad Marg New Delhi Pan Aaacd3494N (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable trust is also demonstrated, therefore, the disallowance of the statutory deduction u/s 24 (a) is a simple disallowance and does not involve any element of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted. Though learned departmental representative could not point out the reason that mere disallowance of the statutory claim when the assessee

DCIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S SPIRITUAL REGENERATION MOVEMENT FOUNDATION OF INDIA,, NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act is being separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. 20. Before the CIT(A) the assessee raised objections against the said action of the AO but the CIT(A) was not convinced with the claim of the assessee in toto and held as under :- “ii.Repayment of loan as application

INSTITUTE OF HAEMATOLOGY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), WARD- 1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 453/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Institute Of Haematology, Vs Income Tax Officer(E), 11/6-B, Shanti Chambers, Pusa Ward-1(2), Road, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaati4626P Assessee By : Sh. T. R. Talwar, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 02.08.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-40, Delhi. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee In This Appeal Relates To The Sustenance Of Penalty Of Rs.68,598/- Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

u/s 12A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of Charitable or religious trusts or institutions (copy enclosed PB 1 to 12). In annexure II of the Audit report with the head Application or use of income or property for the benefit 3 Institute of Haematology of persons referred to in section 13(3), the Auditor

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. BHAI HOSPITAL TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. M. Garg & Sh. N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08 Ito (E) Bhai Hospital Trust Trust Ward-Iii Vs 55, Hanuman Road, Laxmi Nagar Distt. Centre Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi-1100001 Pan No.Aaatb0492M (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable activities as professed in the' trust deed and as envisaged in the claim of benefits of exemption u/s. 12A ; in terms of requirements of section 2(15) and further conditionalities of sections 11,12 and 13 of the I.T.Act. Accordingly the benefits of Section 11 and 12 are denied to the assessee. ii) By holding the shares

LAXMI KANT MISHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the end of the relevant

Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust vs. CIT report in 207 ITR 368. 4. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedent relied upon herein above, we hold that penalty levied u/s 271F of the Act would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

LAXMI KANT MISHRA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 35(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: the end of the relevant

Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust vs. CIT report in 207 ITR 368. 4. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedent relied upon herein above, we hold that penalty levied u/s 271F of the Act would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law in the facts and circumstances of the instant case

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

Charitable Prajanalaya Trust Ward-1(4), Room No. 2421, 104, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 24th Tilak Bazar Chowk Floor, E-2 Block, Dr. New Delhi S.P.Mukherjee Civic Centre New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFM2171L Assessee by : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 20.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2017 ORDER PER BENCH : These

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

Charitable Prajanalaya Trust Ward-1(4), Room No. 2421, 104, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 24th Tilak Bazar Chowk Floor, E-2 Block, Dr. New Delhi S.P.Mukherjee Civic Centre New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFM2171L Assessee by : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 20.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2017 ORDER PER BENCH : These

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Saini, Am & Sh. K.N.Chary, Jm Ita No. 3281-3287/Del./2016 Asstt. Year : 1992-93,1993-94, 1994-95, 2001-02, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08

Charitable Prajanalaya Trust Ward-1(4), Room No. 2421, 104, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, 24th Tilak Bazar Chowk Floor, E-2 Block, Dr. New Delhi S.P.Mukherjee Civic Centre New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAFM2171L Assessee by : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 20.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2017 ORDER PER BENCH : These

ONCOR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 19(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.28,12,314/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(A), who upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assesses is before the Tribunal. 3. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee submitted that firstly, there is no application of the mind by the Assessing Officer

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2008-09] Ghaziabad Development Vs Dcit Exemption, Authority, C/O-Rra Taxindia, Circle Ghaziabad. D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. Pan-Aaalg0072C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Deepash Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri K. M. Mahesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2022

271(l)(c) on the assessed income and that too without allowing the benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12, despite the fact that assessee was granted the registration u/s 12A w.e.f. 01-04-2002. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1 , NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1 , NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. CIT(A)- 1 , NOIDA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years

SWARN JAYANTI RAIL NAGAR FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION,NOIDA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD , GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for the same assessment years. Since the issues involved in all the appeals are common arising out of identical set of facts, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order. 2. First, I will take up the quantum of appeals for the assessment years