CIT v. Dharmodayam Co.

109 ITR 527Supreme Court of India1977#9990 most cited
11

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Dharmodayam Co.

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 267/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ubject and nothing Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. more need be said about it. It is enough to point out that in a subsequent decision in CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 which came by way of an appeal from the judgment of the Kerala High Court, this Court itself has, in effect and substance, departed from this view and adopted the same construction which has commended itself to us. The question which arose in this case was whether the income from business of conducting kurries carried on by the assessee was exemp…

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 266/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ubject and nothing Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. more need be said about it. It is enough to point out that in a subsequent decision in CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 which came by way of an appeal from the judgment of the Kerala High Court, this Court itself has, in effect and substance, departed from this view and adopted the same construction which has commended itself to us. The question which arose in this case was whether the income from business of conducting kurries carried on by the assessee was exemp…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 265/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ubject and nothing Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. more need be said about it. It is enough to point out that in a subsequent decision in CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 which came by way of an appeal from the judgment of the Kerala High Court, this Court itself has, in effect and substance, departed from this view and adopted the same construction which has commended itself to us. The question which arose in this case was whether the income from business of conducting kurries carried on by the assessee was exemp…

M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 264/ALLD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi06 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: ShriAshishBansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriSunil Bajpai, CIT- D.R
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…ubject and nothing Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. M/s. Varanasi Development Authority v. ACIT,Circle-3, Varanasi,U.P. more need be said about it. It is enough to point out that in a subsequent decision in CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527 which came by way of an appeal from the judgment of the Kerala High Court, this Court itself has, in effect and substance, departed from this view and adopted the same construction which has commended itself to us. The question which arose in this case was whether the income from business of conducting kurries carried on by the assessee was exemp…

M/S.BHARATHAKSHEMAM,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, THRISSUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/COCH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(bb)Section 2(15)

…profit, the requirement of the definition would be met and it is immaterial how the monies for achieving or implementing such purposes are found, whether by carrying on an activity for profit or not. This departure in the case of Dharmodayam Company (1977) 109 ITR 527 9 I.T.A. No. 590/Coch/2019 was justified by the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Surat Art Silk Manufacturers Association (1980) 121 ITR 1 on the ground that when Krishna lyer, J. made the observations regarding the Kerala High Court's decision in CIT vs. Dharmodayam (1974) 94 ITR 113, the facts in the latter decision were not rais…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN vs. ST.THOMAS CATHEDRAL CHURCH, TRICHUR

ITR/1/2012HC Kerala13 Nov 2019

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

For Respondent: ST.THOMAS CATHEDRAL CHURCH
Section 11

…(2001) 248 ITR 816. It was held that until the introduction of Section 11 (4A) with effect from 1st April, 1984, the case of the assesse ITR Nos.2, 3, 4/2005 & 1/2012 -7- therein was governed by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1977) 109 ITR 527 (SC). But sub-section 11 (4A) has introduced certain conditions in the matter of application of sub-sections (1), (2) (3) & (3A) of Section 11. The apex court observed that, the Tribunal had not applied its mind to those conditions; nor the High Court had given due considerations to those aspects. Therefore inorder to decide whether the assessee…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN vs. ST.THOMAS CATHEDRAL CHURCH,IRINJALAKUDA

ITR/4/2005HC Kerala13 Nov 2019

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

For Respondent: ST.THOMAS CATHEDRAL CHURCH
Section 11

…(2001) 248 ITR 816. It was held that until the introduction of Section 11 (4A) with effect from 1st April, 1984, the case of the assesse ITR Nos.2, 3, 4/2005 & 1/2012 -7- therein was governed by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1977) 109 ITR 527 (SC). But sub-section 11 (4A) has introduced certain conditions in the matter of application of sub-sections (1), (2) (3) & (3A) of Section 11. The apex court observed that, the Tribunal had not applied its mind to those conditions; nor the High Court had given due considerations to those aspects. Therefore inorder to decide whether the assessee…

ITO, WD-12(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMRABATHI INVESTRA PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1315/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri N.K.Poddar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Gautam M.Bavishi,FCA
Section 73Section 73(1)

…fund deployment in the following words -. "In our opinion, the objects in the memorandum are not conclusive of the nature of business carried on . by the assessee-company. As has been observed by the supreme court in the case of CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. [1977] 109 ITR 527, it is notorious that the memorandum and articles of association of companies usually cover a variety of activities but the activity which the company actually engages alone determines the nature of its business. We do find that the maximum amount invested in the share business was Rs. 40.65 lakhs as on 31-8-1978 which is much more thon the maxim…

DCIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. KARUNA MEDICA SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6650/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Jason P Boaz, Am Asst. Cit(A) (Exemption), M/S Karuna Medical Society, 1(1) Room No.506, 5 Th Floor, Jeevan Bima Nagar, Borivali(W) Vs. Parimal Chamber, Lilbaug, Mumbai-400103 Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aaatk0426A Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By .. Shri. B.S Bist, Dr Assessee By .. Ms. Aarti Vissanji, Ar Date Of Hearing .. 09-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 09-01-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…R 686, 692 (Kerala), wherein, the assessee was held to be entitle to claim exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act. In respect of the income from Kury business, which itself was held in trust by the assessee. This decision was set-aside by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2001) 248 ITR 816 (SC). In DIT vs Bombay Billion Association Dharma NO Kanto Trust (2002) 254 ITR 708 (Bom.), wherein, the general public. was beneficiary, therefore, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that since there was substantial compliance of section 11(4A)(b), therefore, the trust was entitled to exemption. Identical ratio was laid down in DIT (E) v…

ASST CIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. KARNUNA MEDICAL SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the Asst

ITA 5861/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. A. RamchandranFor Respondent: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri. Kashyap S
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…R 686, 692 (Kerala), wherein, the assessee was held to be entitle to claim exemption u/s 11(1) of the Act. In respect of the income from Kury business, which itself was held in trust by the assessee. This decision was set-aside by Hon’ble Apex Court in (2001) 248 ITR 816 (SC). In DIT vs Bombay Billion Association Dharma NO Kanto Trust (2002) 254 ITR 708 (Bom.), wherein, the general public was beneficiary, therefore, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that since there was substantial compliance of section 11(4A)(b), therefore, the trust was entitled to exemption. Identical ratio was laid down in DIT (E) v…

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1198/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 11Section 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

…videnced by the Wakf Deed executed by Lt. Panchi Bibi. Ld. AR further relied on various judgments which are discussed hereunder:- a) CIT vs. Dharmodayam Co. 225 ITR 686 (Ker) [following the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Dharmodayan Co. 109 ITR 527 (SC)] b) Thanthi Trust v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others 213 ITR 639 (Mad) It is further submitted that the Wakf-estate has been granted exemption u/s 12A vide a Certificate of Registration dated 27.01.1997 issued by DIT (Exemption). Further, the income of the Wakf-estate has been set ITA No.1193-1198/Kol/2012 A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2008-09…

CIT v. Dharmodayam Co. (109 ITR 527) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax