FATEH CHAND CHARITABLE TRUST,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, MEERUT

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

5 of 27 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ITO vs. M/s Sanathan Dharam Shiksha Samiti, Hisar passed in ITA No. 3266 to 3269/Del/2011 (Ayrs. 2005-06 to 2008-09) wherein the Tribunal has allowed all the four appeals of the Department

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEAS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

80G of the Act at the same figure as was done in the revised return of income. The Assessing Officer, however, by an order dated 18th December, 2000 framed an assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act at `34,31,020/-. The Assessing Officer did not allow deduction under Section

KOHINOOR FOODS LTD. FORMERLY SATNAM OVERSEASLTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

80G of the Act at the same figure as was done in the revised return of income. The Assessing Officer, however, by an order dated 18 th December, 2000 framed an assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act at ₹34,31,020/-. The Assessing Officer did not allow deduction under Section

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. JAKSON LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

80G of the Act in respect of the Anugrah Foundation despite noting that there were discrepancies in the receipt of donation. (5) 5. The appellant craves to add or amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ (a) That on the facts

JAKSON LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-4, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

80G of the Act in respect of the Anugrah Foundation despite noting that there were discrepancies in the receipt of donation. (5) 5. The appellant craves to add or amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ (a) That on the facts

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. JAKSON LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Mrs. Renu Jauhri

80G of the Act in respect of the Anugrah Foundation despite noting that there were discrepancies in the receipt of donation. (5) 5. The appellant craves to add or amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “ (a) That on the facts

BRIJBASI EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL III, NEW DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

80G thereof. The Appellant filed its return of income on 14th September, 2006 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny, and pursuant thereto, an Assessment Order under section 143(3) was passed on 15th December 2008. The Assessee preferred an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] who confirmed the same vide

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G of the Act was claimed. Vide note no.13 to the computation of the income such contribution was claimed as deduction u/s 37 of the Act. Ld. AO disallowed it holding that it was not incurred for the purposes of the business and alternatively as no tax has been deducted it was disallowable

VISHWADHARMAYATAN TRUST vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

80G of the Act on 11th February 1983. 3. On 1st November 1996 the Income Tax Department („Department‟) undertook a search at the premises of the Assessee at C-18-19, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi under Section 132 of the Act. It is claimed that during the search certain documents were seized and an inventory was prepared. Notices were

RAJ KUMAR KARANWAL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

reassessment order was passed without complying with the mandatory conditions of section 147 to 151.” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee individual is a wholesaler and distributor of medicines. He filed his return for AY 2010-11 on 09.12.2010 declaring income of Rs. 3,95,130/-. Thereafter, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued

M/S DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD.,,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result all, the three appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

80G and Rs. 86250749/- u/s 80IB/80IC of the Act. Resultant net taxable income is shown at Rs. 57032680/-. Book profit u/s 115JB has been computed at Rs 130428160/- and as book profit tax was more than tax payable under the normal provision of the computation of total income tax u/s 115JB was paid. DCIT, Circle 10(1), New Delhi framed

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SURESH JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 369/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Ita No. 370/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 374/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Acit Vs Suresh Jain Circle-38(1), C-29, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpj6507G Assessee By : Sh. Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Sumit Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 29.11.2001 Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Xxviii, New Delhi For The Assessment Year 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2006-2007. Since The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, So These Are Being Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

section 10(37), the capital gain arisen from the acquisition of the land amounting to Rs.58,17,070/- is brought to tax. Accordingly an addition of Rs.58,17,070/- is made to the returned income. 3. Since the assessee has not produced the vouchers in respect of expenses claimed, wrongly claimed loss from the firm M/s Ridge Court Bowling Centre

CHILDREN WELFARE TRUST (REGD),FARIDABAD vs. CIT EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 3637/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Children Welfare Trust (Regd) Vs National Faceless C/O. Gita Balniketan Senior Assessment Centre, Secondary School, 3-E, Nit, Delhi (Nafac) Faridabad Delhi Pan: Aabtc6957B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Pavan Ved, Adv, Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Sh. Mirza, Ca & Shri Sarthakkh Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By Ms.Pooja Swaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

reassessment proceedings in following manners:- “It is respectfully submittedthat the fee received from students is credited under various heads, building and amalgamation funds being one of them. It is further submitted that building fund is the amount collected from Children Welfare Trust Vs. CIT(E) new admissions and it is spent for the purpose of construction of building. Amalgamation fund

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. RITES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

section 37/36(l)(vii) of the Act. (iii) That in any case, the disallowance is merely on the basis of change of opinion and same is not sustainable in the case of reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. 3(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance

RITES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPL. RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

section 37/36(l)(vii) of the Act. (iii) That in any case, the disallowance is merely on the basis of change of opinion and same is not sustainable in the case of reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. 3(i) That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming disallowance

GANDHI COLLEGE OF PHARMACY,KARNAL vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 3476/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Gandhi College Of Pharmacy, Vs Acit, Near Iti Chowk, G. T. Road, Circle, Karnal Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5629D Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.03.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A), Karnal. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Is Bad Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Action Of A.O. In Holding That The Assesses Is Not Eligible For Exemption Under Section 10(23C)(Iiiad) Of The Act.

5 of the assessment order dated 06.08.2009, for the cost of repetition, the same is not reproduced herein. He further observed that appeal of the assessee filed against the order dated 24.04.2008 of the ld. CIT, Karnal was dismissed by the ITAT vide order dated 9 Gandhi College of Pharmacy 12.06.2009 in ITA No. 2185/Del/2008. The AO also observed that