DIT (Exemptions) v. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust

272 ITR 379High Court2005#7385 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 13(2)(c)section 144(b)advancement of general public utilitysection 12a(a)section 13(2)section 11(4a)section 13(3)section 13(1)(c)section 11(1)(a)section 40a(2)section 13(1)section 11(1)

Judgments citing DIT (Exemptions) v. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust

VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE ESSAR GUJARAT LIMITED),AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…ional\nHigh Court in their subsequent decision in Lalludas Children Trust Vs,\nCIT,251 ITR 50(Guj) Similar view has been taken in the several cases\nincluding in DIT Vs. Lovely Bal Shikha Parishad, 266 ITR 349 (Del.), DIT Vs.\nGuru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust, 272 ITR 379(Del.), CIT Vs. Leader Valves\nLtd.,295 ITR 273(P&H) and CIT Vs. DS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.,\n25 DTR (Del) 8, Arihant Builders Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT\n[2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v.…

THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48

…ional\nHigh Court in their subsequent decision in Lalludas Children Trust Vs,\nCIT,251 ITR 50(Guj) Similar view has been taken in the several cases\nincluding in DIT Vs. Lovely Bal Shikha Parishad, 266 ITR 349 (Del.), DIT Vs.\nGuru Nanak Vidhya Bhandar Trust, 272 ITR 379(Del.), CIT Vs. Leader Valves\nLtd.,295 ITR 273(P&H) and CIT Vs. DS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.,\n25 DTR (Del) 8, Arihant Builders Developers & Investors (P.) Ltd v. ITAT\n[2005] 277 ITR 239 (MP), Asstt. CIT v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. [2003] 263\nITR 679 (MP), CIT v. Neo Poly Pack (P.) Ltd [2000] 245 ITR 492 (Delhi),\nDhansiram Agarwalla v.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,, JALANDHAR

ITA 344/ASR/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 421/ASR/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

THE DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 39/ASR/2007[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

DCIT, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 328/ASR/2007[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 177/ASR/2006[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 272/ASR/2004[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1997-98

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JALANDHAR vs. M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST, JALANDHAR

ITA 261/ASR/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1999-2000

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

M/S SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 129/ASR/2002[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 186/ASR/2001[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1994-95

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 185/ASR/2001[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1994-95

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

M/S. SADHU SINGH HAMDARD TRUST,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

ITA 184/ASR/2001[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Dec 2023AY 1993-94

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

For Appellant: Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. D. R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(c)Section 2(15)

…es have allowed that positionto be sustained by not challensing the order. it would not be at all appropriateto allow the position to be chansed in a subsequent year,”(emphasis supplied) 10. In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistentwith its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in theobjects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible forexemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of whichare vul…

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

…rties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year.”(emphasis supplied) In the case of DIT (Exemptions) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust: 272 ITR 379, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the department is expected to be consistent with its own stand which has been taken in earlier years, when there is no change in the objects of the trust during the year and such objects when found permissible for exemption in the past, notwithstanding the fact that it has manifold objects some of which are…

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. HAMDARD NATION FOUNDATION (INDIA), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1985/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. R.M. Mehta, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…High Court - order dated 10th February, 2011 in ITA No.93/1999. (iv) Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) vs. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society (2008) 300 ITR 75 (Del.) (v). Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust, (2005) 272 ITR 379 (Del.) (vi). Director of Income-tax (Exemption) vs. Moti Bagh Mutual aid Education, (2008) 298 ITR 190 (Del.) (vii). Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Tiny Tots Education Society, (2011) 330 ITR 21 (P&H). (viii). Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Sheth Manilal Ranchhoddas Vishram Bhavan Trust reported in 198 ITR 598 (Guj.). (ix). CIT vs. Raghubir Saran…

DIT (Exemptions) v. Guru Nanak Vidya Bhandar Trust (272 ITR 379) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax