Commissioner of Income-Tax v. SEETHAKATHI TRUST

295 ITR 520High Court2007#11478 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income-Tax v. SEETHAKATHI TRUST

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, CHENNAI

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 624/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 624/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer The Theosophical Society, (Exemptions), V. 1, Adyar, Ward -4, Chennai – 600 020. Chennai. [Pan: Aaatt-0479-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri. N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 143(3)

…nterested person' will not be applicable while examining the claim for exemption under section 10(23C)(iv). This was reiterated by IT AT Lucknow in the case of Virendra Singh Memorial Shiksha Samiti [2010, 35 SOT 1]. 4. In the case of Seethakathi Trust [2007] 295 ITR 520 (Madras), the Assessing Officer denied the exemption under section 10(22) of the Act and also denied the benefits of sections 11 and 12 of the Act holding that the assessee violated the provisions of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Act. ITAT dismissed revenue appeal stating that as the assessee is entitled to exemption under secti…

OBEROI FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3469/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleoberoi Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) Commerz, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 Pan: Aaato1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented By : Shri K.C. Salvamani

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263o

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Oberoi Foundation V. CIT (Exemptions) Commerz, 3rd Floor 6th Floor, Piramal Chambers International Business Park Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Oberoi Garden City, Off. W.E. Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai - 400063 PAN: AAATO1684L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vijay Mehta Department Represented by : Shri K.C. Salvamani Date of Hearing : 01.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appe…

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 558/ASR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

…es but that is an investment which the Trust is allowed as per the provisions of Income-Tax, as long as its Gross receipts does not exceed rupees one crore. 7. Furthermore, In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus SEETHAKATHI TRUST reported in (2007) 295 ITR 520 (Mad), [Refer page No. 55 to 57 of the paper book and relevant page no. is 56 & 57] in which it was observed as under:- “Exemption-A O denied the assessee claim for exemption u/s 10(22) and the benefits of section 11 and 12 on the ground that assessee has violated the provisions of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d)-Held that assessee entit…

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 557/ASR/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

…es but that is an investment which the Trust is allowed as per the provisions of Income-Tax, as long as its Gross receipts does not exceed rupees one crore. 7. Furthermore, In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus SEETHAKATHI TRUST reported in (2007) 295 ITR 520 (Mad), [Refer page No. 55 to 57 of the paper book and relevant page no. is 56 & 57] in which it was observed as under:- “Exemption-A O denied the assessee claim for exemption u/s 10(22) and the benefits of section 11 and 12 on the ground that assessee has violated the provisions of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d)-Held that assessee entit…

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 556/ASR/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

…es but that is an investment which the Trust is allowed as per the provisions of Income-Tax, as long as its Gross receipts does not exceed rupees one crore. 7. Furthermore, In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus SEETHAKATHI TRUST reported in (2007) 295 ITR 520 (Mad), [Refer page No. 55 to 57 of the paper book and relevant page no. is 56 & 57] in which it was observed as under:- “Exemption-A O denied the assessee claim for exemption u/s 10(22) and the benefits of section 11 and 12 on the ground that assessee has violated the provisions of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d)-Held that assessee entit…

M/S. SHREE-E-KASHMIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATIONAL,JAMMU vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the captioned four appeals of the Assessee Trust are allowed

ITA 555/ASR/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 13Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 234A

…es but that is an investment which the Trust is allowed as per the provisions of Income-Tax, as long as its Gross receipts does not exceed rupees one crore. 7. Furthermore, In the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus SEETHAKATHI TRUST reported in (2007) 295 ITR 520 (Mad), [Refer page No. 55 to 57 of the paper book and relevant page no. is 56 & 57] in which it was observed as under:- “Exemption-A O denied the assessee claim for exemption u/s 10(22) and the benefits of section 11 and 12 on the ground that assessee has violated the provisions of section 11(5) read with section 13(1)(d)-Held that assessee entit…

SETH WALCHAND HIRACHAND MEMORIAL TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 4852/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vaibhavi PatelFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Ningshan
Section 10(33)Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

…the purpose of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Thus the Ld. Senior Counsel has submitted that if exemption is available u/s 10 then section 11 is irrelevant. He has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Vs. Seethakathi Trust (295 ITR 520.) (ii) Brahmin Educational Society vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income tax (227 ITR 317) (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities [1982] (135 ITR 485 ) (iv) Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax (143 ITR 584) (v) Commissioner of Income-tax. v. Bar Council of Maharashtra. (130 ITR 28)…

ASST CIT (E) I(1),MUMBAI vs. JAMSHETJEE TATA TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 3807/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dilip J. ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri-DR
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11aSection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 254(1)

…the purpose of section 11 of the Income Tax Act. Thus the Ld. Senior Counsel has submitted that if exemption is available u/s 10 then section 11 is irrelevant. He has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Vs. Seethakathi Trust (295 ITR 520.) (ii) Brahmin Educational Society vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income tax (227 ITR 317) (iii) Commissiner of Income Tax vs. Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities [1982] (135 ITR 485 ) (iv) Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (143 ITR 584) (v) Commissioner of Income-tax. v. Bar Council of Maharashtra. (130 ITR 28)…

VAIRAMS KINDERGARTEN SOCIETY,PUDUKKOTTAI vs. ITO, PUDUKKOTTAI

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

ITA 289/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Feb 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.289/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Vairams Kindergarten Society, The Commissioner Of Income Rajagopalapuram, V. Tax (Appeals), Pudukottai – 622 003. Tiruchirapalli. Pan : Aagfv 4771 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12A

…d to assess the advance so given by the assessee by applying provisions of Section 11 to 13 of the Act. The Ld A.R 6 I.T.A. No. 289/Mds/2014 invited our attention to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Seethakathi Trust (295 ITR 520), wherein it was held that the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act are not applicable to a Trust claiming exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the provisions of Section 10(22) has since been deleted and in its place the present 10(23C)(iiiad) have been inserted. Accordingly he submitted that the decision re…

Commissioner of Income-Tax v. SEETHAKATHI TRUST (295 ITR 520) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax