CIT v. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd.

253 ITR 226High Court2002#10417 most cited

What is CIT v. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd. authority for?

The phrase 'any other consideration' in the context of taxability, like for charitable trusts, takes its color from the preceding specific terms such as 'cess' and 'fee'. This implies a similar restrictive interpretation.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd. · 253 ITR 226 · section 10(23C) · charitable purpose · any other consideration · cess · fee · taxability of trusts

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 CIT v. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd.

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)

…VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. 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…

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)

…VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. 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…

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)

…VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. 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…

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)

…VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. 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…

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)

…VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. 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…

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)

…VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. 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…

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)

…VST 289 (Karn) HC; [Paras 19 to 24] σ CIT vs. McDowell & Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 514 (SC); [Paras 10 to 17] σ Grasim Industries Ltd vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay (2002) 128 STC 349 (SC); [Para 11] σ CIT vs. Shree WarnaSahakariSakharKarkhana Ltd., (2002) 253 ITR 226 (Bombay); [Page 230] 7.13 It is submitted that applying the aforesaid principle of interpretation, the phrase “any other consideration” shall take the colour from the specific terms ‘cess’ and ‘fee’. 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…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2011-12

ITA 1113/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. H. R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1112 and 1113/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2007-08, 2011-12 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Circle 5(1)(1), Room No.233, Corporation Ltd., 2nd Floor, BMTC Complex, No.1234, IT Park, 15th Floor, 4th 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Main Road, Bangalore – 560 095. Rajajinagar Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 044. PAN : AABCR 5689 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri. Sundar Rao, CIT Assessee by : Shri. H. R. Suresh,…

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2011-12

ITA 1112/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. H. R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1112 and 1113/Bang/2016 Assessment years : 2007-08, 2011-12 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s. Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Circle 5(1)(1), Room No.233, Corporation Ltd., 2nd Floor, BMTC Complex, No.1234, IT Park, 15th Floor, 4th 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Main Road, Bangalore – 560 095. Rajajinagar Industrial Estate, Rajajinagar, Bangalore – 560 044. PAN : AABCR 5689 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Shri. Sundar Rao, CIT Assessee by : Shri. H. R. Suresh,…

Sri. Revanasiddeshwar Co-Opeative Credit Society, Bijapur vs. ITO, Bijapur

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

ITA 843/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, Jm & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhaskar Reddy, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 43BSection 5Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)Section 890P(2)(a)

…ibit any other society from becoming a member in so far the disallowance u/s 43B of the IT ACT is concerned, the learned counsel also submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Shree Warna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd 253 ITR 226 was directly on the issue. 5 ITA No.843(Bang)2014 10. We have heard both parties and perused the material on record. Following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sri Biluru GUrubasava Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Bagalkot and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Jamakhandi Co- Operative Cr…