CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha

245 ITR 242High Court2000#6614 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)(via)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(4)Section 11(4A)Section 11(5)Section 12Section 12A

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 11(4)section 4asection 164(2)advancement of general public utilitysection 11(6)section 153(3)section 11(4a)section 44bbsection 13(2)section 44bsection 164

Judgments citing CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha

ST. JOSEPH'S EDUCATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX -(E)-II(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2509/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhri

Section 12ASection 80G

…therefore, it cannot be treated as business activity without there being any element of profit embedded in such receipts. B5. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT vs Samyukta Gowda Saraswatha Sabha reported in 245 ITR 242. The Ld.AR submitted that, Hon'ble High Court was seized with an identical situation, wherein, the school was providing education and letting out of grounds though it was not one of the objects of the assessee but was carried out to fulfil the main objects of the trust. Hon'ble Court then held that, letting out of ground for a few hours was with…

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1638/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

…-ordinate Bench held the income from Kalyanamandapam as income from house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Obviously, assessee cannot now raise a plea against the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that income of the assessee from renting out Kalyanamandapams were business income, and it has wisel…

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1637/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

…-ordinate Bench held the income from Kalyanamandapam as income from house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Obviously, assessee cannot now raise a plea against the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that income of the assessee from renting out Kalyanamandapams were business income, and it has wisel…

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1636/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

…-ordinate Bench held the income from Kalyanamandapam as income from house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Obviously, assessee cannot now raise a plea against the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that income of the assessee from renting out Kalyanamandapams were business income, and it has wisel…

M/S AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1635/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

…-ordinate Bench held the income from Kalyanamandapam as income from house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Obviously, assessee cannot now raise a plea against the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that income of the assessee from renting out Kalyanamandapams were business income, and it has wisel…

M/S AVM CHARITIES ,CHENNAI vs. ITO,EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1634/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

…-ordinate Bench held the income from Kalyanamandapam as income from house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Obviously, assessee cannot now raise a plea against the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that income of the assessee from renting out Kalyanamandapams were business income, and it has wisel…

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1633/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

…-ordinate Bench held the income from Kalyanamandapam as income from house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Obviously, assessee cannot now raise a plea against the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that income of the assessee from renting out Kalyanamandapams were business income, and it has wisel…

M/S. A V M CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2012-13 to 2014-15 are allowed and appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 1632/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishna, FCA &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 13(1)(c)Section 147Section 164(2)

…-ordinate Bench held the income from Kalyanamandapam as income from house property. For taking this view, in the earlier round, this Tribunal had relied on a judgment of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, (2000) 245 ITR 242, which was also duly considered by their Lordships when the question was remitted back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Obviously, assessee cannot now raise a plea against the finding of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that income of the assessee from renting out Kalyanamandapams were business income, and it has wisel…

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

ITA 285/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, FCA and Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

….11 of the Act back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the following observations. ‘’5. For the purpose of consideration, we may refer to the judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha reported in [2000] 245 ITR 242 . That was a case where this court was considering the question as to whether the letting out of property as marriage hall by a charitable trust for earning income is a ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 6 -: business income or property income and whether such trust is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of such…

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

ITA 279/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, FCA and Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

….11 of the Act back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the following observations. ‘’5. For the purpose of consideration, we may refer to the judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha reported in [2000] 245 ITR 242 . That was a case where this court was considering the question as to whether the letting out of property as marriage hall by a charitable trust for earning income is a ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 6 -: business income or property income and whether such trust is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of such…

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

ITA 278/CHNY/2018[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, FCA and Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

….11 of the Act back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the following observations. ‘’5. For the purpose of consideration, we may refer to the judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha reported in [2000] 245 ITR 242 . That was a case where this court was considering the question as to whether the letting out of property as marriage hall by a charitable trust for earning income is a ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 6 -: business income or property income and whether such trust is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of such…

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

ITA 277/CHNY/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, FCA and Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

….11 of the Act back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the following observations. ‘’5. For the purpose of consideration, we may refer to the judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha reported in [2000] 245 ITR 242 . That was a case where this court was considering the question as to whether the letting out of property as marriage hall by a charitable trust for earning income is a ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 6 -: business income or property income and whether such trust is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of such…

AVM CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for all the 13

ITA 286/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285 & 286/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 1997-98, 1998-99, 2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-2014 & 2014-15. M/S. Avm Charities, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.101, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Exemptions Ward 1, Mylapore, Chennai. Chennai 600 004. [Pan Aaata 0512F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, FCA and Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

….11 of the Act back to the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with the following observations. ‘’5. For the purpose of consideration, we may refer to the judgment of this court in the case of CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha reported in [2000] 245 ITR 242 . That was a case where this court was considering the question as to whether the letting out of property as marriage hall by a charitable trust for earning income is a ITA Nos.277 to 286/2018 :- 6 -: business income or property income and whether such trust is entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act in respect of such…

THE PATHARE PRABHU CHARITIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4966/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…n in the cases where charitable institutions have let out property as marriage hall, etc., same has been held to be eligible for exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act and not liable to be treated as ‘Business income’ :- i) CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, 245 ITR 242 (Mad) ii) CIT v. Gordhandas Bhagwandas Charitable Trust, 136 Taxman 161 (Mad) iii) DIT v. Sahu Jain Trust, 243 CIT 131 (Cal) 7 The Pathare Prabhu Charities ITA Nos. 4965 & 4966/Mum/2015 iv) CIT v. Sri Rao Baghadur ADK Dharmaraja Educational Charity Trust, 300 ITR 365 (Mad) v) DDIT v. Habib Ismail Hospital & Medical Trust, 19 ITR(Trib) 223 (Mum…

THE PATHARE PRABHU CHARITIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4965/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…n in the cases where charitable institutions have let out property as marriage hall, etc., same has been held to be eligible for exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act and not liable to be treated as ‘Business income’ :- i) CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha, 245 ITR 242 (Mad) ii) CIT v. Gordhandas Bhagwandas Charitable Trust, 136 Taxman 161 (Mad) iii) DIT v. Sahu Jain Trust, 243 CIT 131 (Cal) 7 The Pathare Prabhu Charities ITA Nos. 4965 & 4966/Mum/2015 iv) CIT v. Sri Rao Baghadur ADK Dharmaraja Educational Charity Trust, 300 ITR 365 (Mad) v) DDIT v. Habib Ismail Hospital & Medical Trust, 19 ITR(Trib) 223 (Mum…

M/S DAKSHINA KANNADA KOOTA BRAHMANARA MITRA MANDALI,BANGALORE vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1483/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Suresh MuthukrishnanFor Respondent: Smt. Swapa Das, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2

…other assets such as generator, vessels etc. for the performance of marriage or other religious ceremonies, should be called as 'business income' or ' income from house property' or any other name. The decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court (66 DTR 211/ (2000) 245 ITR 242) relied by the appellant was considered by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a subsequent decision in case of Paramartha Bhushanam Sri Nathalla Sampath Chetty Charities reported in (2003) 182 CTR 380. In this subsequent decision it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that decision of the Court reported in 243 ITR 439 (Madras) which held that lettin…

SH. DEV RAJ KATARIA,PANIPAT vs. DCIT, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands disposed off accordingly

ITA 270/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 76Section 87

…payment. Ld. CIT(A) upheld the observations made by the Ld. A.O. Further, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the reassessment proceedings to be valid following the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Punjab Tractors Ltd. VSs ACIT reported in 245 ITR 242. 4.1 Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 5. In respect of Ground No.2(i) and 3, the ld. AR submitted that the ld.AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act in spite of the fact that time to issue notice u/s 143(2) was available. 5.1 It has been submitted by the Ld. A.R. that enhanced compensation including other statut…

CIT v. Samyuktha Gowda Saraswatha Sabha (245 ITR 242) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax