Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT

143 ITR 584Reported decision1983#11137 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Issues it is cited on

section 4(3)section 205section 36(1)(v)section 10(23c)(iv)advancement of general public utilitysection 52proviso to section 2(15)mliput to usesection 10(23c)section 2(15)section 40a(3)

Judgments citing Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…nstrumentality of the state. Therefore, this Court has no doubt in holding that it is not involved in carrying any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 15. In a similar vein, the Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 584/12 Taxman ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 48 of 176 209 held that the object of the Bar Council, to safeguard the interests of its advocates, to assist disabled advocates, to see that advocates who misbehave are ta…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…nstrumentality of the state. Therefore, this Court has no doubt in holding that it is not involved in carrying any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 15. In a similar vein, the Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 584/12 Taxman ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 48 of 176 209 held that the object of the Bar Council, to safeguard the interests of its advocates, to assist disabled advocates, to see that advocates who misbehave are ta…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…nstrumentality of the state. Therefore, this Court has no doubt in holding that it is not involved in carrying any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 15. In a similar vein, the Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 584/12 Taxman ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 48 of 176 209 held that the object of the Bar Council, to safeguard the interests of its advocates, to assist disabled advocates, to see that advocates who misbehave are ta…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…nstrumentality of the state. Therefore, this Court has no doubt in holding that it is not involved in carrying any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 15. In a similar vein, the Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 584/12 Taxman ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 48 of 176 209 held that the object of the Bar Council, to safeguard the interests of its advocates, to assist disabled advocates, to see that advocates who misbehave are ta…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…nstrumentality of the state. Therefore, this Court has no doubt in holding that it is not involved in carrying any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 15. In a similar vein, the Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 584/12 Taxman ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 48 of 176 209 held that the object of the Bar Council, to safeguard the interests of its advocates, to assist disabled advocates, to see that advocates who misbehave are ta…

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…nstrumentality of the state. Therefore, this Court has no doubt in holding that it is not involved in carrying any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 15. In a similar vein, the Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 584/12 Taxman ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 48 of 176 209 held that the object of the Bar Council, to safeguard the interests of its advocates, to assist disabled advocates, to see that advocates who misbehave are ta…

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

…nstrumentality of the state. Therefore, this Court has no doubt in holding that it is not involved in carrying any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business. 15. In a similar vein, the Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 584/12 Taxman ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019, ITA 1962/Bang/2018 & ITA Nos.2086 to 2089/Bang/2018 M/s. Udupi Nirmithi Kendra, Udupi & Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 48 of 176 209 held that the object of the Bar Council, to safeguard the interests of its advocates, to assist disabled advocates, to see that advocates who misbehave are ta…

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vaibhavi PatelFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan
Section 10(33)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

….) (ii) Brahmin Educational Society vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income tax (227 ITR 317) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities [1982] (135 ITR 485 ) (iv) Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax (143 ITR 584) (v) Commissioner of Income-tax. v. Bar Council of Maharashtra. (130 ITR 28) 9.4 The Ld. Senior Counsel referred the observations of these decisions and submitted that once the income is exempt u/s 10, same cannot be said to be taxed u/s 11 to 13. He has further contended that if the exemption is available to the assessee under two provisions of…

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 3807/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dilip J. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri-DR
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11aSection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 254(1)

…20.) (ii) Brahmin Educational Society vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income tax (227 ITR 317) (iii) Commissiner of Income Tax vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities [1982] (135 ITR 485 ) (iv) Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (143 ITR 584) (v) Commissioner of Income-tax. v. Bar Council of Maharashtra. (130 ITR 28) 9.4 The Ld. Senior Counsel referred the observations of these decisions and submitted that once the income is exempt u/s 10, same cannot be said to be taxed u/s 11 to 13. He has further contended that if the exemption is available to the assessee under two provisions o…

Allahabad High, in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh v. CIT (143 ITR 584) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax