BALLARAM HANUMANDAS CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13

section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)]] and subsequently the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution, as the case may be, he shall

GOLDEN SAND TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

50,00,000 d) The use of such donation received in lieu of cash is donation to group trusts/societies, i.e. Harmony Foundation, Noble Charitable Trust, RPG Educational Trust, all at 11, Camac Street, Kolkata. Maximum amount spent on account of charity is inter-trust donations. Rebuttal of replies of assessee trust In the replies, the assessee contended that the receipt

M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Charitable Trusts under Section 80G as the Trust were approved under section 80G(5)(vi) by the Commissioner of Income Tax, in this behalf. Neither there is any express provision nor any of the explanations present under Section 80G, prohibits the assesse to claim the amount made towards donation as deduction under Chapter VIA, even if the same has been

ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. M.K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appealof the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1903/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, 2/2. Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 020. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccm 0884 H (Assessee) .. (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1974/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, 2/2. Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 069. Kolkata – 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccm 0884 H (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By :Shrisaurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2018

Charitable Trust to be bogus and thereby denying claim of deduction of Rs. 12,50,000/- under section 80G of the Act.” 4. The brief

M/S. M. K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD,,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appealof the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1903/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, 2/2. Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 020. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccm 0884 H (Assessee) .. (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1974/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, 2/2. Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 069. Kolkata – 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccm 0884 H (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By :Shrisaurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2018

Charitable Trust to be bogus and thereby denying claim of deduction of Rs. 12,50,000/- under section 80G of the Act.” 4. The brief

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]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

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]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

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]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

JERMELS ACCADEMY,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP,, SILIGURI

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

trust running a school, appealed against orders confirming additions of ₹50,14,820/- under section 69A for unexplained cash deposits and penalty orders under section 271B. The assessee claimed charitable

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]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

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]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

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]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

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]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

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]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

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 received an aggregate sum of Rs.7,95,000/- as corpus donation received from several donors which included corporate entities as well as individuals/HUFs. The assessee in view of provisions of section 11(1)(d) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ( in short hereinafter, the ‘Act’) treated the corpus donation as not income and were directly routed to the balance

JERMELS ACCADEMY ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP, , SILIGURI

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has erred in\nconfirming the penalty of ₹1,50,000/- levied u/s 271B of the Act, without\nappreciating that the appellant is a charitable trust

JERMELS ACCADEMY,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP,, SILIGURI

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

section 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, has erred in\nconfirming the penalty of ₹1,50,000/- levied u/s 271B of the Act, without\nappreciating that the appellant is a charitable trust

M/S DR. B. G. MEMORIAL TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 366/Kol/2016

50,00 0.00 0.00 00.00 0.00 .00 .00 0 Q.19. Please state how did you decide to make such donations to various trust/ organization. Ans. Sir, it was a prearranged accommodation entry in form of bogus donations. The same was arranged by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal & Mr. Ajay Agarwal, CA who is also 5 M/s.Dr.B.G.Memorial Trust. through cheque/RTGS in turn

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