INDIAN NATIONAL CONG. (I) AICC vs. C.I.T.- XI

68. Mr Singh submitted that whether a receipt is income or not is a mixed question of fact or law and the matter ought to be remanded to the ITAT to call for and examine the complete books and decide the question afresh. Interpreting Section 13A 69. Section 2(15) of the Act defines what is ‘charitable purpose

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

section 142(2A) while confirming the order of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption under sections 11/12 of the Act. 8.2 The ld. AR on queries raised by the Bench responded that assessee trust is not running shops or distribution of products and for those shoppings and distribution and selling of products, as on commercial basis different entity

SHAIKSHANIK KEISHANK SAMAJ,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2(24)(iia), where a person receiving such 16. In the case of Shanti Niketan Trust Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi) wherein the assessee had not only disclosed its donations, but had also submitted a list of donors and the AO proceeded to treat the same as anonymous donations only for the reason that the notices

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4078/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6935/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2036/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Mantola Cooperative Vs Income Tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-62(5), 541, Mantola, Phar Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt1976A Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020

68,38,319 54,12,931 80P(2)(a)(i) Tax demand if deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is restricted to income earned from 80,77,256 76,45,770 84,00,520 members only Alternate claim of deduction considering deduction under section 80P(2

MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4078/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6935/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2036/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Mantola Cooperative Vs Income Tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-62(5), 541, Mantola, Phar Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt1976A Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020

68,38,319 54,12,931 80P(2)(a)(i) Tax demand if deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is restricted to income earned from 80,77,256 76,45,770 84,00,520 members only Alternate claim of deduction considering deduction under section 80P(2

THE MANTOLA COOPERATIVE THRIFT & CREDIT SOCIETY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-62(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 4078/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 6935/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 2036/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 The Mantola Cooperative Vs Income Tax Officer, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward-62(5), 541, Mantola, Phar Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt1976A Assessee By : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2020

68,38,319 54,12,931 80P(2)(a)(i) Tax demand if deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) is restricted to income earned from 80,77,256 76,45,770 84,00,520 members only Alternate claim of deduction considering deduction under section 80P(2

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

PUBLIC POLITICAL PARTY,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

68 of the Act, can be attributed to the case of the assessee.” 8. Quite apparently the assesse has very vaguely contested the factual assertions of assessing officer as made in remand report and also before us during the hearing assessee was unable to demonstrate substantial compliance of filing of return as per Section

HERO MOTOCORP LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

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

section 194C was amended by the Finance (2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.10.2009, whereby the definition of “work” was enlarged to include contract for manufacturing or supplying a product according to the requirement or specification of a customer by using material purchased from such customer. The said amendment also provided that contract for carrying out work shall not include contract

VEDANTA LTD ,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

24. Before the lower authorities, the ld. counsel for the assessee explained that it incurs the maintenance cost for SAP accounting system used by Vedanta group entities. The relevant extracts of Agreement between Appellant and third party service provider were furnished. The TPO was of the opinion that this transaction is akin to IT enabled services and, therefore, the assessee

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

iia) of clause (24)of section 2, shall if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose, being computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12)exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, furnish

SRF LTD.,,GURGAON vs. ADDL CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

2(24) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and when a receipt is not on in the character of income it cannot form part of the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, 1961. In the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. (supra) the income in question was taxable but was exempt under a specific provision