PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

3) of the Act without considering that the mutwallis were authorized under the mandatory rule framed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in respect of the assessee Wakf which was created much prior to the commencement of this Act, to enjoy rent free accommodation and as such no addition on account of deemed income should have been made

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

3) of the IT Act, 1922”, charitable purposes” was defined as “… .. In this sub-section “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act part of the income from

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

3) of the IT Act, 1922”, charitable purposes” was defined as “… .. In this sub-section “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act part of the income from

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3) of the IT Act, 1922”, charitable purposes” was defined as “… .. In this sub-section “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act part of the income from

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3) of the IT Act, 1922”, charitable purposes” was defined as “… .. In this sub-section “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act part of the income from

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

3) of the IT Act, 1922”, charitable purposes” was defined as “… .. In this sub-section “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act part of the income from

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), EXEMPTION , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

3) of the IT Act, 1922”, charitable purposes” was defined as “… .. In this sub-section “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act part of the income from

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

3) of the IT Act, 1922”, charitable purposes” was defined as “… .. In this sub-section “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act part of the income from

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

3) of the IT Act, 1922”, charitable purposes” was defined as “… .. In this sub-section “Charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief and the advancement of any other object of general public utility, but nothing contained in clause (i) or clause (ii) shall operate to exempt from the provisions of this Act part of the income from

D.D.I.T (E) - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SHREE MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1042/Kol/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ddte(E)-I, Kolkata Vs. Shree 5Th Floor, 10B Middleton Row, Mohananandabrahmachari Kolkata-700071 Medical Welfare Trust Ae-467, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts 0083 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Biswas,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Vigyaneshwarnathdatta, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2003-04, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Jalpaiguri, In Appeal No.763/Cit(A)-Xiv/11-12, Dated 06.03.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2011. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

31, 1994.” It was apparent from the above that the purposes for which the fund was actually vague and not specified. In so far, it is fixed for anyone or more of the objects of the Trust set out in the Trust deed, whereas in the present case, out of the other objects, the fund was clearly earmarked for public

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Charitable Trust (2001) (247 ITR 1) … iv. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in L.R. Patel Family Trust vs. ITO (2003) (262 ITR 520) … v. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employee Welfare Trust (2004) (271 ITR 159) … vi. The Hon'ble Tribunal in Sriram Trust, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. CIT, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviasansol Durgapur V/S. Commissioner Of Development Authority Income Tax, 1St Administrative Durgapur, Urmila Building, City Center, Bhawan, City Center Durgapur, West Bengal [Pan No.Aaala 0733G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

charitable. 4. Facts in brief are that assessee-applicant is a Development Authority constituted u/s. 11 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning & Development) Act, 1979 and engaged in the activities of developing the public utilities. The assessee-trust upto including Assessment Year 2003-04 was claiming the exemption u/s. 10(20A) of the Act. However, the Section

SHREE RAM TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Trust Mhow v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 832 (MP). No reason whatsoever has been given by the Revenue authorities for deducting Rs. 2,17,126 in this case for purposes of section 11(1)(a). The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue did not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. The circular

SARLABEN BHANSALI CHARITIES TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

charitable trust. It filed its return for A.Y. 2009-10 on 11.10.2010 declaring NIL income. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and thereafter completed the 2 I.T.A. No. 663 & 76/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) & Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) determining the total income

SARLABEN BHANSALI CHARITIES TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

charitable trust. It filed its return for A.Y. 2009-10 on 11.10.2010 declaring NIL income. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and thereafter completed the 2 I.T.A. No. 663 & 76/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) & Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) determining the total income

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

charitable trusts which have been approved under section 80G(6)(vi) and unlike sub-clauses (iiihk) and (iiihi), there is no restriction or prohibition set out in the said sub-clause denying deduction under section 80G for CSR contributions. [Para 13]” 7.2. It is further noticed that CSR expenditure is an obligation of the company specified in section

SREE SREE MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. DDIT(E)-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 Sree Sree Mohanananda Vs. Ddit(E)-I, Kolkata Brahmachari Medical Welfare Trust 10B Middleton Row, Kolkata- Ae-467, Salt Lake City, 700071 Kolkata – 700 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts 0083 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Biswas,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Vigyaneshwarnathdatta, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2002-03, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-Xiv, Kolkata, In Appeal No.762/Cit(A)-Xiv/2011-12, Dated 18.03.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2011. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1.For That The Order Of Assessment Is Void Ab Initio, Bad In Law & Is Neither Tenable In Law Nor In Facts. 2.For That The Assessment Order Is Opposed To Requirement In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 3.For That The Assessment Is Made In Arbitrary, Violence Of Natural Justice, Without Application Of Mind & Not Tenable In Law. 4.For That The Order Of Authorities Below Is Grossly Unjustified In Disallowing The Claim Of Rs.54,83,854/- U/S 11(2) Of The Act. The Contention Of The Assessing Officer Is Neither Tenable In Law Nor In Facts.

31, 1994.” It was apparent from the above that the purposes for which the fund was actually vague and not specified. In so far,it is fixed for anyone or more of the objects of the Trust set out in the Trust deed, whereas in the present case, out of the other objects, the fund was clearly earmarked for public

SURAJ DEVI MOHTA CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. DIT-EXEMPTION, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2023/Kol/2014 Suraj Devi Mohta Charitable Vs. D.I.T.(Exemption), Kolkata Trust 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th 7, Lyons Range, 2Nd Floor, Room Floor, Kolkata – 700 071. No.4C, Kolkata – 700 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaets3384 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri P. J. Bhide, Fca Respondent By :Shri G. Hangshing, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/09/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Director Of Income Tax (Exemption), Kolkata Dated 06.08.2014. 2.This Appeal Is Time-Barred By 21 Days. The Assessee Moved An Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. Having Heard The Petition Of Condonation Of Delay, We Find That There Was Sufficient Reason For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Time Limit, Before The Itat. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing. 3. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1.That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Director Of Income Tax(Exemption), Kolkata Erred In Rejecting The Application For Renewal Of Exemption U/S 80G(5)(Vi) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 On The Ground That The Loan Given To Mrs. Shrutimohta, Wife Of One Of The Trustees, Shri

3) for any period during the previous year without either adequate security or adequate interest or both;” Therefore, the ld. Counsel for the assessee had submitted before us that there was no violation of section 11(5) of the Act because the assessee trust had taken the adequate security of gold ornaments and the interest charged by the trust