ITO, WARD- 27(4), NEW DLEHI vs. ZEXUS AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ito, Vs Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Ward-27(4), 148-149, Centrum Plaza, New Delhi. Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L Co No.121/Del/2018 (Ita No.2608/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Zexus Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 148-149, Centrum Plaza, Ward-27(4), Sector-53, Dlf Phase-V, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aaacz6541L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gaurav Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.121/Del/2018 The Assessee Has Filed The Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

section 68 to make the said addition in the appellant's hand. Transactions purportedly executed by entry operators involve multiple layers and other complexities, introducing delays in introduction of unaccounted cash/money and multiple players being incorporated entities. Measures taken by the AO in the course of the assessment proceeding falls much short of what is required to be done

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. SHRISH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandradcit, Room No. 225E, Cr Vs. M/S Shrish Enterprise Building, 2Nd Floor, Private Limited, Hall No. Ip Estate, 3 & 4, M-27/2, Badli New Delhi - 110002 Industrial Estate, Badli, Delhi – 110042 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aafcs0684N Appellant .. Respondent

80G(2)(a), the donation must be a sum of money paid by the assessee." In view of the above decision the phrase 'any sum' employed in Section 68

MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the additional Ground No

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

80G of the Act in respect of donations made as part of CSR expenditure. Re: Disallowance of Deduction under section 35(2AB) amounting to Rs. 12,01,42,780/- 5. That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in allowing weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act at Rs.100,90,68

JUST BE FOUNDATION TRUST ,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E) , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshram/S Just Be Foundation Commissioner Of Income Trust Flat No. 01, Yamuna Vs Tax (Exemptions), E-2, Apartments, Alaknanda, Civic Centre, New Delhi New Delhi-110019

section 80G of the I.T. Act, the total funds available with the applicant (including donations amounting to Rs. 18,000/-) was only Rs. 19,000/- out of which Rs. 6,000/- (excluding bank charges of Rs. 68

AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), DELHI / NFAC, DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sudhir Pareek & Shri Manish Agarwalamway India Enterprises Private Dcit, Limited, Circle-1(1), Ground Floor, Elegance Tower, Vs. Delhi/Nfac. Plot No.8, Non Hierarchical Commercial, Jasola, Delhi-110025. Pan-Aaaca5603Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

68,00,000/- is AMP for the benefits of its international transaction u/s AE as discussed in the 92B(1) read with clause (v) order; accordingly, AMP of section 92F. & Commission expenditure of Rs.628,82,00,000/- is international transaction u/s 92B(1) read with clause (v) of section 92F. Amway India Enterprises Private Limited vs. DCIT

SOCIETY FOR WELFARE AWARENESS RESEARCH AND GUIDANCE,DELHI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD 2(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

68 of the Act. Thus, even on merit, we do not find any force in the allegations raised by the Revenue. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has cancelled the registration under section 12AA of the Act on the basis of conjunctures and surmises, as he has observed in his order that the assessee might have been charging

LAKSHYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishilakshya Educational Trust, Vs. Addl. Cit, Range-1, Akhilesh Kumar, Adv., Chamber Ghaziabad No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, Pan: Aatl6943M (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 68 does not apply. He further relied upon the decision of the coordinate bench in ITA No. 4778/Del/2013 dated 08.03.2019 where the addition u/s 68 in the hands of that assessee is confirmed. He further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of NRA Iron and Steel Co. and the decision

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

Appeal is allowed

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

68,99,745 covered under section 115-BBC of the Act. 12. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs.6,52,493, being the value of Tata Sumo (vehicle) received as donation by the appellant. 13. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred on facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-49(1) , NEW DELHI vs. SURESH KUMAR GOYAL, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

section 68, as follows: “2. Facts of the case: The appellant is an individual and was running the business of waste and metal scrap from the last several years in the name of M/s Goyal Iron & Steel Traders. Assessee filed his original Return of Income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 22,79,120/- and a revised Return

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI HRIDEY VIKRAM BHATIA, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

section 68, as follows: “2. Facts of the case: The appellant is an individual and was running the business of waste and metal scrap from the last several years in the name of M/s Goyal Iron & Steel Traders. Assessee filed his original Return of Income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 22,79,120/- and a revised Return

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13, DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 80G of the Act which are to be fulfilled before deduction are claimed. The co- ordinate Delhi bench in ITA No. 5643/DEL/2010 order dated 22.04.2019, in the case of Max New York Life Insurance Company for A.Y 2006-07 has captured the conditions and held as under: Page 4 of 13 ITA Nos. 67, 68

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13 , DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 80G of the Act which are to be fulfilled before deduction are claimed. The co- ordinate Delhi bench in ITA No. 5643/DEL/2010 order dated 22.04.2019, in the case of Max New York Life Insurance Company for A.Y 2006-07 has captured the conditions and held as under: Page 4 of 13 ITA Nos. 67, 68

DELHI DUTY FREE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMTED,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals of Revenue in decided as follows:

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

section 80G of the Act which are to be fulfilled before deduction are claimed. The co- ordinate Delhi bench in ITA No. 5643/DEL/2010 order dated 22.04.2019, in the case of Max New York Life Insurance Company for A.Y 2006-07 has captured the conditions and held as under: Page 4 of 13 ITA Nos. 67, 68

POPULATION SERVICES INTERNATIONAL,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

68 taxmann.com 322 (Del. Trib.) 2. M/s. Hughes Communication India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.2346/Del/2014 & 4550/Del/2018 (Del. Trib.) 17. Without prejudice, he submitted, the CIT (Exemption) could not have withdrawn the approval granted under section 10(23C)(iv) of the retrospectively. In support of such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. ACIT Vs. Agra Development Authority

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

SRS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FARIDABAD vs. ITO(E), FARIDABAD

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

80G of the Act and therefore, the provision of section 68 of the Act are not applicable to it as admittedly

AT & T GLOBAL NETWORK SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

68,47,514 under the head licence fees debited to Profit & Loss Account by holding that annual license fee is not allowable as a revenue expenditure and it should be amortized under section 35ABB of the Act. 6. Denial of Deduction of Donation under section 80G

MAX NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimax New York Life Insurance Vs. Dcit, Company Ltd, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi Plot No. 90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

68. We noted that Section 44 of the Act start with a non-obstante clause and overriding other provisions of the Act, provides for profits and gains from life insurance business to be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Act. As per rule 2 of the First Schedule to the Act, profits