Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dharmodayam Co.

225 ITR 686High Court1997#17267 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dharmodayam Co.

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

…ducted by the Charitable Trust is eligible for exemption or not, in view of sub-section (4A) introduced to Section 11 of the Income Tax Act with effect from 01-04-1984. A Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax V. Dharmodayam Co. (1997) 225 ITR 686 held that, if the Kuri business is held in trust, the income therefrom would not be governed by sub-section (4A) as has been held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Dharmodayam Co. (1977) 109 ITR 527 (SC). In the said decision this court held that the Tribunal has correctly held that, the assessee is entitled to claim exemptio…

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

…ducted by the Charitable Trust is eligible for exemption or not, in view of sub-section (4A) introduced to Section 11 of the Income Tax Act with effect from 01-04-1984. A Division Bench of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax V. Dharmodayam Co. (1997) 225 ITR 686 held that, if the Kuri business is held in trust, the income therefrom would not be governed by sub-section (4A) as has been held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT V. Dharmodayam Co. (1977) 109 ITR 527 (SC). In the said decision this court held that the Tribunal has correctly held that, the assessee is entitled to claim exemptio…

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)

…he benefit due to an assessee in case of an income from a business held interest is extended to an income from a business carried on by it on its satisfying the conditions laid down the under clauses (A) & (b) of the section (CIT vs Dharmodayam COMPANY (1997) 225 ITR 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 70…

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)

…he benefit due to an assessee in case of an income from a business held interest is extended to an income from a business carried on by it on its satisfying the conditions laid down the under clauses (A) & (b) of the section (CIT vs Dharmodayam COMPANY (1997) 225 ITR 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 7…

Panchi Bibi Wakf Estate, Kolkata vs. DDIT (E)-II, 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)

…the instant case, it is the undisputed fact that Mehmansarai is the property held under the Trust as evidenced 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).…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dharmodayam Co. (225 ITR 686) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax