Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT

103 ITR 777Supreme Court of India1976#5743 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 2(15)Section 11Section 12Section 12ABSection 11(4A)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80G

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)section 13(8)section 11(4a)mlisection 2(15)cancellation of registration

Judgments citing Dakshina Kannada Nirmithi Kendra, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust v. CIT

ARYANS EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST REGD, MOHALI,MOHALI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1136/CHANDI/2024[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Sept 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1136/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2025-26 Aryans Educational & The Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Regd.Mohali Vs Chandigarh, C/O Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate, # 527, Sector 10-D, Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabta7550L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(ii)Section 13(3)

…tration is called for. These include: If primary objects are charitable, exemption cannot be denied if a subsidiary object is found to be non-charitable but which is intended to subserve the religious and charitable objects. [Yograj Charity Trust v CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC)]. The above can be called the predominance principle. To determine the predominant object, what is required to be examined is the objects of the society and not the quantum of surplus though such quantum may become relevant in certain circumstances. [Supreme Court in the cases of Victoria Technical Institute 188 ITR 57) Thiagarajar Charities…

SHREE KHANDELWAL DIGAMBAR JAIN FOUNDATION,AURANGABAD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed

ITA 2555/PUN/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 8Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2554 and 2555/PUN/2024 Shree Khandelwal Digambar Vs. Commissioner of Income Jain Foundation Tax (Exemption), Pune Office No. 603, Sut Girini, Space Olympia, Garkheda, Aurangabad 431001 Maharashtra PAN: ABJCS602IN Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Respondent by : Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR Date of hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned tw…

AUDYOGIK NIDHI VISHWAST SANSTHA POONA,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE, PMT BUILDING

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

ITA 2135/PUN/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraaudyogik Nidhi Vishwast Sanstha The Cit (Exemption), Poona Pune 366, Narayan Peth, Limaye Vs. Building, Laxmi Road, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaata1619H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

…ent and in that particular previous year only but the CIT(E) in exercise of power u/s 12AB, cannot deny registration to assessee. The decisions in East India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611 (SC) and Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) relied by Ld. CIT(E) are not related to grant of registration but are for computation of total 16 income by Assessing Authority. In present case, we are concerned with grant of registration by CIT(E), therefore those decisions are not relevant. It also remains a fact, as shown by Ld. AR with reference to the documents in Paper-Book, that th…

ARUVA FOUNDATION,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for

ITA 399/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611 (SC) to hold that all objects must be charitable and that application of income to charitable purpose is immaterial. Further, the CIT(E) has also relied upon Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) wherein it was held that if the trust-deed provides many charitable objects and the trustees are given uncontrolled discretion to spend the whole of trust funds for any of the non- charitable purpose, the income would not be exempt u/s 4(3)(i) of 1922 Act. 7. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the impugned orde…

ARUVA FOUNDATION,MANDSAUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed for

ITA 398/IND/2024[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Indore11 Dec 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…India Industries (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1967) 65 ITR 611 (SC) to hold that all objects must be charitable and that application of income to charitable purpose is immaterial. Further, the CIT(E) has also relied upon Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777 (SC) wherein it was held that if the trust-deed provides many charitable objects and the trustees are given uncontrolled discretion to spend the whole of trust funds for any of the non- charitable purpose, the income would not be exempt u/s 4(3)(i) of 1922 Act. 7. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the impugned orde…

M/S. AURO LAB TRUST,,MADURAI vs. ITO, MADURAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3075/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3073, 3074, 3075 & 3076/Chny/2019 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Aurolab Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.1, Sivaganagai Main Road, Vs. Ward-Ii(4), Veerapanjan, Madurai. Madurai – 625 020. [Pan: Aaata 1142P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ+ की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi, Advocate -.थ+ की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee For Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-12 To 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Madurai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts In All The Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Identical & Common Grounds Have Been Raised In All The Appeals, All The Appeals Are Decided By The Common Order. For Brevity , We Shall Take Up The

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 1I

…or charitable/ medical relief nor for general public utility but purely a commercial venture with profit motive and the arguments of the tenuous and liable to be rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of yogirai Charity Trust Vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777, that where there are various objects of the trust, which are all independent objects and even if one of these objects cannot be described as a charitable purpose, the claim of the entire trust for exemption has to fall. In the case of the assessee-trust, of the five objects, while the object clause (e) fails to be a charitable one, for the way i…

GOLDEN CHARITABLE TRUST,SANGLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 933/PUN/2023[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.933/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :- Golden Charitable Trust, The Cit Exemption, 2349, Guruwar Peth, Miraj, V Pune. Maharashtra – 416410. S Pan: Aactg0998H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 12Ab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Passed On 30.06.2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Cit (Exemption) Has Erred In Fact & In Law In Rejecting The Application For The Registration Of The Trust U/S. 12A(1) (Ac) Despite The Fact That Appellant Trust Is Engaged In Pursuing Purely Charitable Objects Such As Providing Medical & Educational Aid To Needy Beneficiaries & The Trust Activities Are Genuine & There Is No Contrary Finding To It. Thus The Rejection Order Is Patently Illegal & Golden Charitable Trust [A]

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 80G

…Act, the objects of the assessee must be charitable in nature. In this case, we have already observed that construction of houses, housing colonies is not a charitable object. 5.3 The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs CIT 103 ITR 777(SC) held as under : Quote, “The test is that if one of the objects of the trust deed is not of a religious or charitable nature and the trust deed confers full discretion on the trustees to spend the trust funds for an object other than of a religious or charitable nature, the exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the Act is not available to the ass…

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

ITA 714/PUN/2018[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Shingte [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Keyur Patel [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 22Section 253(1)(c)

…tances of the case, the dominant object of the activity is profit-making or carrying out a charitable purpose. If it is the former, the purpose would not be a charitable purpose. A similar ratio can also be traced in ‘Yogiraj Charity Trust Vs CIT’ reported in 103 ITR 777(SC). Upon forewarning former judicial precedents, the appellant denied the application of these decisions stating that, these were rendered in context registration of educational society u/s 10(23C) of the Act and not in context of hospitals hence are inapplicable, this displacement could hardly make any difference in present adjudication. The re…

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)

…ders them meaningless and ineffectual. 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, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as follows: If the primary or dominant purpose of trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust from being valid charity. ………. 4.18 In CIT vs. Surat Art Silks Manufacturer’s Assoc…

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)

…ders them meaningless and ineffectual. 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, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as follows: If the primary or dominant purpose of trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust from being valid charity. ………. 4.18 In CIT vs. Surat Art Silks Manufacturer’s Assoc…

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)

…ders them meaningless and ineffectual. 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, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as follows: If the primary or dominant purpose of trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust from being valid charity. ………. 4.18 In CIT vs. Surat Art Silks Manufacturer’s Assoc…

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)

…ders them meaningless and ineffectual. 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, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as follows: If the primary or dominant purpose of trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust from being valid charity. ………. 4.18 In CIT vs. Surat Art Silks Manufacturer’s Assoc…

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)

…ders them meaningless and ineffectual. 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, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as follows: If the primary or dominant purpose of trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust from being valid charity. ………. 4.18 In CIT vs. Surat Art Silks Manufacturer’s Assoc…

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)

…ders them meaningless and ineffectual. 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, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as follows: If the primary or dominant purpose of trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust from being valid charity. ………. 4.18 In CIT vs. Surat Art Silks Manufacturer’s Assoc…

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)

…ders them meaningless and ineffectual. 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, Manguluru Page 33 of 176 4.17 In Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 777 (SC), the Supreme Court has held as follows: If the primary or dominant purpose of trust is charitable, another object which by itself may not be charitable but which is merely ancillary or incidental to the primary or dominant purpose would not prevent the trust from being valid charity. ………. 4.18 In CIT vs. Surat Art Silks Manufacturer’s Assoc…

THE FINE ARTS SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are party allowed

ITA 189/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2171/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…s of the assessee have been granted power to spend the money of the trust on the objects of the trust which also includes commercial activities." 5. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777(SC), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if the objects are mixed and assessee is engaged in both the activities, the exemption under section 11 of the Act cannot be claimed. Aggrieved against the findings of AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, confirmed…

THE FINE ARTS SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. DY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) - 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are party allowed

ITA 2171/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2171/Mum/2016 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

…s of the assessee have been granted power to spend the money of the trust on the objects of the trust which also includes commercial activities." 5. The AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 777(SC), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if the objects are mixed and assessee is engaged in both the activities, the exemption under section 11 of the Act cannot be claimed. Aggrieved against the findings of AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A). 6. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, confirmed…

SHANMUKHANANDA FINE ARTS & SANGEETHA SABHA,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) I(2),

ITA 1975/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1975/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./6858/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 वष" Sri Shanmukhananda Fine Arts & Ddit (Exemption)-I-(2) Sangeetha Sabha Piramal Chambers, 5Th Floor 292,Comrade Harbanslal Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400 012. Sion (East)Mumbai-400 022. Pan:Aaats 2694 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri V. Rajguru-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind Javeri सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2018 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार /Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 20/01/2016 Of The Cit(A)-1, Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals For The Same A.Y.The First Appeal Is Against The Regular Appellate Order,Whereas The Second Appeal Is About The Rectification Application Filed Under Section 154 Of The Act. We Are Adjudicating Both The Appeals Together. Assessee-A Registered Trust,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2011,Along With The Income & Expenditure Account & Other Financial Statements Declaring Deficit Of Rs. 27.17 Crores. The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment On,10/03/2014,U/S. 143(3)Of The Act, Determining Its Income At Rs.4.51 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind JaveriFor Respondent: Shri V. Rajguru-CIT-DR
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

…s,that as per clause 21 of Memorandum of Association (MOA) the trustees had discretionary power to spend on various activities, that it was not entitled to exemption as per the provisions of section 11 of the Act. He referred to case of Yogiraj Charity Trust (103 ITR 777). 3.Regarding the disallowance of depreciation,the AO observed that assessee was claiming the fixed assets as application of receipt in the revenue account, that claiming full amount of assets in revenue account and again claiming depreciation amounted to double deduction. He disallowed the claim made by the assessee.He further observed that even…

THE CHRISTIA LITERATURE SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. JCIT (OSD), CHENNAI

In the result, I set aside the orders of the lower authorities

ITA 2818/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Smt. B. Jaisheila, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sahadevan, IRS, JCIT
Section 11

…149 ITR 624 for taking a view that object clause of a trust could not be amended. As per ld. Assessing Officer, judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust (2002) 254 ITR 212 Taxman 889 and Yogiraj Charity Trust vs. CIT 103 ITR 777, fortified his view that objects of a trust could not be changed. 5. Ld. Assessing Officer also noted that audited accounts of the assessee carried a qualification regarding account of Cochin and Trivandrum branches of the assessee being not incorporated in its final accounts. According to ld. Assessing Officer profits of Cochin and Trivandrum…

ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PEOPLES FORUM, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and cross objections filed

ITA 325/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2009-2010 Acit (Exemptions), Aayakar Vs. M/S. Peoples Forum, Plot Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. No.Hig 44, Dharma Vihar, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aaatp 2214 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 288A

…oneself [Andhra Chamber of Commerce [1965] 55 ITR 722 (SC)] (ii) A commercial concern is not an object of relief of the poor on the ground that it provides employment. The object should provide relief directly and not indirectly [Yograj Charity Trust [1976] 103 ITR 777(SC)] iii) For a trust to be accepted as a charitable trust for the purposes of exemption, it is necessary that the objects should be specific] so as to confirm to the requirement of income tax law in this regard. Where they are too wide, the trust may not qualify for exemption [Gangabai Charities [1992] 197 ITR 416 (SC); Assembly Rooms [2000] 24…