INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 was passed on 28.03.2013. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in framing assessment u/s 148 read with section 143(3) after treating the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 on 12.10.2012 as non-est. 4. That the reasons recorded and the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law since, no proper approval as required in section

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

147 was passed on 28.03.2013. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in framing assessment u/s 148 read with section 143(3) after treating the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 on 12.10.2012 as non-est. 4. That the reasons recorded and the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law since, no proper approval as required in section

DISTT. RED CROSS SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO (E), FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

reassessment proceedings. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee society has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act by the competent authority vide order dated 21/03/2016, which is effective from assessment year 2016-17. For assessment year 2010-11, no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. In view of cash deposits

DISTT RED CROSS SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, HARYANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Through Video Conferencing]

reassessment proceedings. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee society has been granted registration under section 12AA of the Act by the competent authority vide order dated 21/03/2016, which is effective from assessment year 2016-17. For assessment year 2010-11, no regular return of income was filed by the assessee. In view of cash deposits

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) appeal was wrong in sustaining an arbitrary and illegal action' of the Assessing officer ITO (exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold the same being non exempted/unregistered entity and as such the same is liable to be quashed being, arbitrary

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) appeal was wrong in sustaining an arbitrary and illegal action' of the Assessing officer ITO (exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold the same being non exempted/unregistered entity and as such the same is liable to be quashed being, arbitrary

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) appeal was wrong in sustaining an arbitrary and illegal action' of the Assessing officer ITO (exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold the same being non exempted/unregistered entity and as such the same is liable to be quashed being, arbitrary

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) appeal was wrong in sustaining an arbitrary and illegal action' of the Assessing officer ITO (exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold the same being non exempted/unregistered entity and as such the same is liable to be quashed being, arbitrary

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) appeal was wrong in sustaining an arbitrary and illegal action' of the Assessing officer ITO (exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold the same being non exempted/unregistered entity and as such the same is liable to be quashed being, arbitrary

JAIBHARAT MANDAL RAMLILA AND DHARAMSHALA SOCIETY,HISAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ROHTAK

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat1. Ita No. 5273/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2008-09) 2. Ita No. 5274/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3. Ita No. 5275/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2010-11) 4. Ita No. 5276/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2012-13) 5. Ita No. 5277/Del/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) 6. Ita No. 291/Del/2020 (A.Y. 2016-17)

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) appeal was wrong in sustaining an arbitrary and illegal action' of the Assessing officer ITO (exemption) Rohtak, in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 against the appellant deemed exempted public charitable society in order to hold the same being non exempted/unregistered entity and as such the same is liable to be quashed being, arbitrary

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

reassessment order under appeal. iii. Likewise in subsequent years, there is no denial of exemption u/s 11 in the Hon’ble Income Tax Settlement Commission order dt: 27.11.2015 (PB 104-133) and also acknowledgment of the fact that in para 8 to 8.3 at pages 117-118 that the registration u/s 12AA and notification under 10(23C)(vi) has been

YOUNG INDIAN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(E), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conference)

reassessment proceedings. 2. The Appellant prays that the order be held as illegal having been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice which are applicable to all the income-tax proceedings and mandate that the assessee be given a fair opportunity of hearing before making any addition/disallowance. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUNDS NO. I, II AND III GROUND

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT (EXCEMPTION), GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA No.5355/Del/2017 is allowed for

12A even after proviso to section 2(15) is taken into consideration. The proviso to section 2(15) has been considered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in assessee's own fase in the order, therefore the judgment of jurisdictional High Court will have the primacy. The Authority GDA is creation of state of U.P UP Urban Planning and Development

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORTIY,,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT (E),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, ITA No.5355/Del/2017 is allowed for

12A even after proviso to section 2(15) is taken into consideration. The proviso to section 2(15) has been considered by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in assessee's own fase in the order, therefore the judgment of jurisdictional High Court will have the primacy. The Authority GDA is creation of state of U.P UP Urban Planning and Development

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data

DILEEP K GUPTA,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-31 , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

12A) of section 2 was inserted to give legal recognition to the books of account maintained on computer and sub-section (22A) to section 2 was inserted to provide definition of 'document' which included “electronic record" as defined under Information Technology Act 2000. Under Information Technology Act 2000 an electronic record has been defined to include data, record or data