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]

trust to the extent of 15% of the gross receipts in perpetuity. In other words , the institution can retain 15% from the application of income without applying for charitable purpose in which accrued meaning thereby that 15% is indefinite accumulation and the assessee is not obliged to apply the same in subsequent years and can be retained as part

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]

trust to the extent of 15% of the gross receipts in perpetuity. In other words , the institution can retain 15% from the application of income without applying for charitable purpose in which accrued meaning thereby that 15% is indefinite accumulation and the assessee is not obliged to apply the same in subsequent years and can be retained as part

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]

trust to the extent of 15% of the gross receipts in perpetuity. In other words , the institution can retain 15% from the application of income without applying for charitable purpose in which accrued meaning thereby that 15% is indefinite accumulation and the assessee is not obliged to apply the same in subsequent years and can be retained as part

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]

trust to the extent of 15% of the gross receipts in perpetuity. In other words , the institution can retain 15% from the application of income without applying for charitable purpose in which accrued meaning thereby that 15% is indefinite accumulation and the assessee is not obliged to apply the same in subsequent years and can be retained as part

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]

trust to the extent of 15% of the gross receipts in perpetuity. In other words , the institution can retain 15% from the application of income without applying for charitable purpose in which accrued meaning thereby that 15% is indefinite accumulation and the assessee is not obliged to apply the same in subsequent years and can be retained as part

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]

trust to the extent of 15% of the gross receipts in perpetuity. In other words , the institution can retain 15% from the application of income without applying for charitable purpose in which accrued meaning thereby that 15% is indefinite accumulation and the assessee is not obliged to apply the same in subsequent years and can be retained as part

INDIAN LEATHER TECHNOLOGISTS' ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

58,428/- in AY 2014-15 and Rs. 41,64,952/- in AY 2007-08, totaling to Rs.61,23,380/- which have been carried forward to AY 2015-16. However, according to Ld. CIT(E), in the case of charitable trusts the concept of brought forward losses do not exist. He, therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. MOHANLAL MAHENDRA KUMAR PATNI CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1463/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2016-17 M/S Mohanlal Mahendra Kumar Patni. -Vs- Cit(E), Kolkata [Pan: Aaatm 8500 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

58[Provided that where an institution or fund derives any income, being profits and gains of business, the condition that such income would not be liable to inclusion in its total income under the provisions of section 11 shall not apply in relation to such income, if— (a) the institution or fund maintains separate books of account in respect

PANCHAJANYA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(4), KOKLATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

58,981/- as Surplus of Income over Expenditure. (ii). Rs 1,00,00,000/-, collected as Re-Admission Fees. (iii).Rs 21,70,700/-Term charges. (iv).Rs. 4,49,180/-, Admission fees Totaling Rs.1,26,19,880/-. 5. The AO was of the view that as per provisions of section 12(1) and section 11(1)(d), a corpus

ITO(E), WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PANCHAJANYA TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

58,981/- as Surplus of Income over Expenditure. (ii). Rs 1,00,00,000/-, collected as Re-Admission Fees. (iii).Rs 21,70,700/-Term charges. (iv).Rs. 4,49,180/-, Admission fees Totaling Rs.1,26,19,880/-. 5. The AO was of the view that as per provisions of section 12(1) and section 11(1)(d), a corpus

I.T.O(E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FUTURE EDUCATION RESCARCH TRUST., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & C.O.No.69/Kol/2013 (A/O Ita No.1031/Kol/2013) Assessment Year:2009-10

charitable purposes, which is of the nature referred to in s. 11(4A), tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under s. 11. Sec. 164(2) was reintroduced by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, w.e.f. 1st April, 1989. Earlier it was omitted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment

DCIT(EXAMPTION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2002/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit(Exemption), Circle- Vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir 1(1), Kolkata

trust. The AO was of the view that, administrative & establishment expenses being attributable to earning income are deductible from gross receipt to determine the net income available for application for charitable purposes for the purpose of calculation of allowable accumulation of 15% under section 11(l)(a) of the Act. Therefore, AO held that following expenses were neither directly

SREEMA MAHILA SAMITY,NADIA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-NADIA, NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

58,642/- and earned interest income of Rs. 3,15,52, 949/-. The AO was of the opinion that the assessee carried an activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business and not being the charitable object, show caused why the profits generated in the form of interest from money lending business shall not be treated as income

M/S INTEGRATED EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is allowed while the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M.Balaganesh

Charitable Trust (supra) were neither referred to nor discussed. Further, although the name of Escorts Ltd. (supra) was mentioned in the list of cases referred to, not a single line of discussion was made on this case in the body of the order. The detail of the order of the Apex Court was not brought to the attention

KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. C.I,T ,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and for statistical purpose

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

58,500 0 Rs.2,68,88,500 Rs.27,75,400 5. According to Ld. AR, these donations received by the assessee society was exclusively utilised for the purpose of expansion of the assessee’s charitable object as evident from audited accounts of FY 2011-12 and drew our attention to Schedule “Fixed Assets” and contended that it is evident from

KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. C.I,T ,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and for statistical purpose

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

58,500 0 Rs.2,68,88,500 Rs.27,75,400 5. According to Ld. AR, these donations received by the assessee society was exclusively utilised for the purpose of expansion of the assessee’s charitable object as evident from audited accounts of FY 2011-12 and drew our attention to Schedule “Fixed Assets” and contended that it is evident from

JAMSHED ALI MOLLA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2233/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jamshed Ali Molla -Vs- Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata [Pan: Aevpm 4145 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable objects, the assessee was forced to sell the flat at Gurgoan and utilize the proceeds thereon for purchasing a property at Rajarhat, Newtown in the name 5 6 Jamshed Ali Molla A.Yr. 2008-09 of the trust for a higher amount due to huge rise in real estate market and due to effluxion of time. But it cannot

ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. GOPSAI AVINANDAN SANGHA, PASCHIM MIDNAPORE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

section 11 (1)(a ) of the Act is not the income earned from property held under trust, but the actual application of the said income for religious and charitable purposes." In other words, the understanding of the AO in this respect is wholly flawed since he failed to go to the root of the issue by interpreting the receipt thereof