CIT v. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation

358 ITR 452High Court2013#6479 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2021.

Judgments citing CIT v. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI vs. M/S EDUCATIONAL TRUST OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for assessment

ITA 1590/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1589 & 1590/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Educational Trust Of (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Seventh Day Adventists Aayakar Bhavan Annex, 3Rd Floor Aaa 148, Third Avenue Chennai-600 034. Anna Nagar West. Chennai-600 040. Pan: Aaate 0547Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr.R.M.Narayanan, FCAFor Respondent: 04.02.2021
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)

…al rachhnoddasVishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598; Punjab and Haryana High court in CIT Vs. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Education society (330 ITR 21); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (358 ITR 452) and the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Siliuguri Regulated Market Committee (358 ITR 51). In addition the Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 262 CTR 558 and the Karnataka High Court in DIT (Exem) Vs Al Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (2016) 67 taxmann.com 160 have accepted the claim of the assessee distinguishing both the judgement o…

DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CHENNAI CIRCLE, CHENNAI vs. M/S EDUCATIONAL TRUST OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for assessment

ITA 1589/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1589 & 1590/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S. Educational Trust Of (Exemptions), Chennai Circle Seventh Day Adventists Aayakar Bhavan Annex, 3Rd Floor Aaa 148, Third Avenue Chennai-600 034. Anna Nagar West. Chennai-600 040. Pan: Aaate 0547Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ""यथ"/Respondent/

For Appellant: Mr.R.M.Narayanan, FCAFor Respondent: 04.02.2021
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)

…al rachhnoddasVishram Bhavan Trust 198 ITR 598; Punjab and Haryana High court in CIT Vs. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Education society (330 ITR 21); Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (358 ITR 452) and the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Siliuguri Regulated Market Committee (358 ITR 51). In addition the Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 262 CTR 558 and the Karnataka High Court in DIT (Exem) Vs Al Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (2016) 67 taxmann.com 160 have accepted the claim of the assessee distinguishing both the judgement o…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANIZATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: None
Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 32(1)

…n Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciation and if done, t…

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORG., NEW DELHI

ITA 3359/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…n Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciation and if done, th…

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORG., NEW DELHI

ITA 3135/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…n Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciation and if done, th…

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORG., NEW DELHI

ITA 2508/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…n Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciation and if done, th…

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORG., NEW DELHI

ITA 1919/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt. Anju Goel, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)Section 25

…n Trust, (1992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciation and if done, th…

SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS P LTD,CHENNAI vs. JDIT EXEMPTION, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

Section 11Section 12ASection 25Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज" माथन, "या%यक सद"य के सम& BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2419/Mds/2017 %नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/s.Services Association of Seventh- The Joint Director of Income- Day Adventists Pvt. Ltd., Tax (Exemptions), AA 148, III Avenue, Chennai-600 034. Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. [PAN: AAACS 9035 J] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) : अपीलाथ( क+ ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.S.Viswanathan,…

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE SOCIETY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

…M-IT; Punjab and Haryana High court in CIT Vs. Market Committee Pipli (330 ITR 16) and CIT Vs. Tiny Tots Education Society (330 ITR 21) = 2010-TIOL-550-HC-P&H-IT; Page 16 of 18 Madhyapradesh High Court in CIT Vs. Devi Sakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation (358 ITR 452) and the Calcutta High Court in CIT Vs. Silluguri Regulated Market Committee (366 ITR 51). In addition, the Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission 262 CTR 558 = 2012-TIOL-271-HC-DEL-IT and the Karnnataka High Court in DIT (Exem) Vs Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (2016) 67 taxmann.com 160 = 2016-TIOL-463-HC-KAR-IThave accepted the clai…

RAJAH SIR ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR MEMORIAL TRUST ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) 1 , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1635/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज# माथन, "या'यक सद"य के सम( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vs. M/s.Rani Meyyammai Achi of The Dy. Director of Income Chettinad Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-1, Chennai. Rani Seethai Hall, Vth Floor, 603, Annasalai, Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AAATR 0715 R] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1635/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष…

RANI MEYYAMMAI ACHI OF CHETTINAD CHARITABLE TRUST ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) 1 , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1634/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज# माथन, "या'यक सद"य के सम( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vs. M/s.Rani Meyyammai Achi of The Dy. Director of Income Chettinad Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-1, Chennai. Rani Seethai Hall, Vth Floor, 603, Annasalai, Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AAATR 0715 R] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1635/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष…

RANI MEYYAMMAI ACHI OF CHETTINAD CHARITABLE TRUST ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) 1 , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1633/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms.Ann Mary Baby, JCIT
Section 11

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखासद"य एवं "ी जॉज# माथन, "या'यक सद"य के सम( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1633 & 1634/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष# /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Vs. M/s.Rani Meyyammai Achi of The Dy. Director of Income Chettinad Charitable Trust, Tax (Exemptions)-1, Chennai. Rani Seethai Hall, Vth Floor, 603, Annasalai, Chennai-600 006. [PAN: AAATR 0715 R] (अपीलाथ*/Appellant) (+,यथ*/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1635/Mds/2017 'नधा#रण वष…

ITO (E) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. SATHYA SAI TRUST, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6567/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ITA No.6567/Mum/2016 & 6568/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year :2009-10 & 2010-11) ITO (E) 2 (3) Vs. Shri Sathya Sai Trust, Ground Floor, Dhamakshetra Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 093 PAN/GIR No. AAATS2874E Appellant) Respondent) .. Revenue by Ms. Beena Santosh Assessee by Shri Deepak Shah and Shri Yash Shah Date of Hearing 19/04/2017 Date of Pronouncement 19/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): These are appeals filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 1 Mumbai dated 12/08/2016 for the A.Y. 2009-10…

ASSTT CIT (E) -I(1), MUMBAI vs. K.J.SOMAIYA TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3774/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2008-09

Section 11(6)

…(Bom), DIT (E) vs Framjee Cavasjee Institute (2014) 227 taxman 266 (Mag.), DIT(E) vs Indraprashtha Cancer Society (2014) 112 DTR 345 (Del.), CIT vs Siligurhi Regulated Marekt Committee 366 ITR 51 (Cal.) and CIT vs Devi Shankuntla Tharal Charitable foundation 358 ITR 452 (MP). 3.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 11(6) was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014. In this section, where any income is required to be applied or accumulative or set apart for application, then for such purposes, the income shall be determined without any deduction or allo…

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX LAXMI NAGAR DELHI vs. TCI FOUNDATION 10 RAM BAGH AZAD MARKET ROHTAK ROAD NEW DELHI

ITA/449/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

…an Trust, (1992) 198ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner ofIncome Tax 1 vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. Institute ofBanking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CITvs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section ll(l)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High V/ Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciation andif done, t…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC & INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

ITA/331/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

…an Trust, (1992) 198ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner ofIncome Tax 1 vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. Institute ofBanking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CITvs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section ll(l)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High V/ Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciation andif done, t…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION

ITA/7/2013HC Delhi27 Nov 2013
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)

…992) 198 ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. . Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Institute of Banking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CIT vs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). . 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section 11(1)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciat…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

ITTA/449/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

…an Trust, (1992) 198ITR 598 (Guj.), Commissioner ofIncome Tax 1 vs. Raipur Pallottine Society, (1989) 180 ITR 579 (M.P.), Commissioner ofIncome Tax vs. Institute ofBanking, (2003) 264 ITR 110 (Bom), and CITvs. Shakuntala Tharal Charitable Foundation, (2013) 358 ITR 452 (MP). 15. Kerala High Court was also conscious of the said decisions and the fact that Section ll(l)(a) had been interpreted in a different manner. It was in these circumstances that the Kerala High V/ Court in the last portion of paragraph 6, as quoted above, has stated that the assessee would be entitled to write back depreciation andif done, t…