CIT v. Anriya Project Management Services P.Ltd.

353 ITR 12High Court2013#17802 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing CIT v. Anriya Project Management Services P.Ltd.

NATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY FEDERATION OF INDIA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD EXEMP 2(4), DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5483/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143Section 194CSection 2(15)Section 250Section 80G

…nant intention and use of funds determine their nature. Voluntary contributions toward a charitable cause cannot be taxed as business income without proof of service rendered. (b) In the case of Director of Income-tax v. Garden City Educational Trust [(2013) 353 ITR 12 (Kar)], the High Court of Karnataka held that When receipts are voluntary and not against any specific service, they cannot be taxed as commercial income. Label of "fee" alone is not sufficient. (c) In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [(2022) 448 ITR 304 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/54/2013HC Karnataka22 Sept 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…LOPERS IN ITA NO.68/2011, ‘CIT VS. M/S G.R.DEVELOPERS IN ITA NO.355/2009, ‘ PCIT VS. OCEANUS DWELLINS (P.) LTD.’, (2017) 395 ITR 376 (KARNATAKA), ‘CIT VS. SJR BUILDERS IN ITA NO.32/2012, ‘CIT VS. ANRIYA PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES (P.) LTD’, (2013) 353 ITR 12 (KARNATAKA), ‘PCIT VS. SHREENATH BUILDCON’, R/TAX APPEAL NO.289/2008, ‘PCIT VS. SHREENATH BUILDCON’, SLP NO.42736/2018, (2019) 110 TAXMANN.COM 13 390 (SC), ‘VISWAS PROMOTERS (P.) LTD. VS. ACIT’, (2013)214 TAMAN 524 (MADRAS), ‘CIT VS. SREEVATSA REAL ESTAETS (P.) LTD.’, (2014) 222 TAXMAN 105 (MADRAS), and ‘CIT VS. SG ESTATE’, 20…

The Commissioner of Income tax - III, vs. M/s. Namala Estates,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

ITTA/383/2010HC Telangana09 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 80I

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL I.T.A. NO.383 OF 2010 BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LTU, JSS TOWERS BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: M/S. SHOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD., #43 , 2ND FLOOR DICKENSON ROAD BANGALORE - 560 058. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. SHANKAR SR. ADV. FOR SRI. M. LAVA, ADV.) - - - THIS I.T.A. IS…

M/S MANDOVI BUILDERS vs. DCIT,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1786/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80

…fore, according to him, the provisions of clauses (e) and (f) cannot be made applicable to the assessee. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anriya Project Management Services P.Ltd. reported in 353 ITR 12 in support of his contention that clauses (e) and (f) are prospective in nature. Without prejudice to his claim that the assessee is entitled to 100% deduction of its profits and gains, the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the case of (i) M/s.SJR Builders vs. ACIT in…

DCIT vs. M/S MANDOVI BUILDERS,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year

ITA 1734/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.K.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 80

…fore, according to him, the provisions of clauses (e) and (f) cannot be made applicable to the assessee. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anriya Project Management Services P.Ltd. reported in 353 ITR 12 in support of his contention that clauses (e) and (f) are prospective in nature. Without prejudice to his claim that the assessee is entitled to 100% deduction of its profits and gains, the learned counsel for the assessee placed reliance upon the decisions of the co-ordinate benches of this Tribunal in the case of (i) M/s.SJR Builders vs. ACIT in…

CIT v. Anriya Project Management Services P.Ltd. (353 ITR 12) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax