M/S CHURCH SCHOOL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee being ITA No

section 10(23)( c )(vi) of the IT Act and has held that mere surplus does not mean that institution is existing for M/s. Church School making profit. The predominant object test must be applied. Hon’ble Apex Court while affirming the decision of Punjab and Haryana High court in case of Pine Grove international charitable trust v/s Union

ACIT vs. M/S XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICE,

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2009-2010

13. Before the CIT(A), ld A.R. of the assessee argued that the assessee owns vehicles, building, staff quarters, furnitures and other assets on which depreciation has been claimed. It has also been contended that the income of a charitable trust as contemplated by section 11(1)(a) and Section 7 IT A No.1 00/R an/2 014 Asse ssmen

ITO EXEMPTION WARD , JAMSHEDPUR vs. ALL INDIA WOMEN'S CONFERENCE , JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

13 was denied. 3. For that the appellant was doing trading to support the unfortunate widows and other handicapped persons to earn their livelihood and to support themselves. Surplus generated was used for the purposes of charity. As such, Ld. CIT(A) was P a g e 3 | 14 ITA No. 230/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

3. That CPC while processing the ITR U/s 143(1) disallowed the deduction claimed U/s 801B for Rs. 27,45,349/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs. 38,55,101/- in AY 2019-20. That as stated above, the sole ground for disallowance was that the ITR has been filed beyond the due date U/s 139(1). 4. That

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

3. That CPC while processing the ITR U/s 143(1) disallowed the deduction claimed U/s 801B for Rs. 27,45,349/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs. 38,55,101/- in AY 2019-20. That as stated above, the sole ground for disallowance was that the ITR has been filed beyond the due date U/s 139(1). 4. That