DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse

259 ITR 280Supreme Court of India2003#1331 most cited

What is DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse authority for?

Violation of investment mandates under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a charitable trust results in the complete denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse · Section 13(1)(d) violation · Section 11 exemption denial · charitable trust investments · denial of tax exemption · Supreme Court ruling · investment modes for trusts · maximum marginal rate · Section 164(2) · trust income exemption

Also reported as

179 CTR 225126 Taxmann 365

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 164(2)Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

section 13(l)(d)section 164(2)section 13(1)(d)section 13(2)section 164section 10(35)section 11(5)section 13(1)cancellation of registrationmaximum marginal ratesection 10(34)section 11(1)(a)

Judgments citing DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse

DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2219/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

…226 ITR 211, that of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (AWARE) vs. DICT (2003) 263 ITR 13 and that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs.vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 267 CTR 305 39. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. There are nine crucial issues coming out of the grounds raised by the Revenue, apart from certain minor quest…

Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), Chennai

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2126/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

…226 ITR 211, that of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (AWARE) vs. DICT (2003) 263 ITR 13 and that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs.vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 267 CTR 305 39. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. There are nine crucial issues coming out of the grounds raised by the Revenue, apart from certain minor quest…

Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), Chennai

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2125/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

…226 ITR 211, that of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Action for Welfare and Awakening in Rural Environment (AWARE) vs. DICT (2003) 263 ITR 13 and that of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs.vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (2014) 267 CTR 305 39. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. There are nine crucial issues coming out of the grounds raised by the Revenue, apart from certain minor quest…

M/S. the Board of Control for Cricker in India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6705/MUM/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh a/w
Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12A

…ject of the trust. Therefore, the assessee is disqualified from availing exemption under section 11 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned Departmental Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) DIT v/s Bharat Diamond Bourse(2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC); and ii) Agappa Child Centre v/s CIT, [1997] 226 ITR 221 (Ker.); 7. The learned Sr. Counsel for the assessee drawing our attention to the provisions of section 11 of the Act submitted, sub–section (1) of 10 The Board of Control for Cricket in India section 11 of the Act makes it clear that the income to the extent applied for charitable or…

Dy.C.I.T. 1(2), Raipur (Cg) vs. M/S Rishabh Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 157/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 165Section 4Section 44A

…ing Officer be restored. He also relied on the following decisions :- 1) Mcdowell & Co. (S/C) 154 ITR 148 2) Durga Prasad More Vs.CIT (SC) 82 ITR 540 3) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (SC) 214 ITR 801 4) CIT Vs. Amrit Lal 212 ITR 514 (Bombay) 5) DIT Vs. Bharat Diamond 259 ITR 280 (S/C) 6) ACIT Vs. Concord Communication 95 ITD 117 (SB) 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT (A). Referring to the copy of the assessment order passed u/s 143 (3) for A. Y. 2003-04, copy of which is placed at paper book page No. 27, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Asses…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 282/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…view of the facts, which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would have come to the determination in question." In DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse [2003] 259 ITR 280 / 126 Taxman 365 , the Supreme Court again reiterated the aforesaid position and held as under: - "As a principle, this court does not disturb findings of fact unless the findings of fact are perverse. It appears to us this is one of those exceptional cases where the correct conclusion recorded by the Assessing Officer, and affirmed by the appell…

DCIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. S.M.Charitable Educational Trust, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 432/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Sri Bibekananda Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ere any property or income of the trust enures or is used or applied for the benefit of trustee or other promoters of the trust have been interpreted strictly by courts. Reference may also be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT Vrs. Diamond Bourse 259 ITR 280. In the case of Mudali family, misuse of trust properties and misapplication of trust money for the personal benefit is everywhere in evidence. The trust is clearly hit by the express provisions of section 13 and ineligible for exemption." 4. Being arrived, the appellant filed appeal against the impugned order of assessment. In the course of app…

DCIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. S.M.Charitable Educational Trust, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 431/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Sri Bibekananda Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ere any property or income of the trust enures or is used or applied for the benefit of trustee or other promoters of the trust have been interpreted strictly by courts. Reference may also be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT Vrs. Diamond Bourse 259 ITR 280. In the case of Mudali family, misuse of trust properties and misapplication of trust money for the personal benefit is everywhere in evidence. The trust is clearly hit by the express provisions of section 13 and ineligible for exemption." 4. Being arrived, the appellant filed appeal against the impugned order of assessment. In the course of app…

DCIT (Exemptions), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. S.M.Charitable Educational Trust, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 430/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Sri Bibekananda Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ere any property or income of the trust enures or is used or applied for the benefit of trustee or other promoters of the trust have been interpreted strictly by courts. Reference may also be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in DIT Vrs. Diamond Bourse 259 ITR 280. In the case of Mudali family, misuse of trust properties and misapplication of trust money for the personal benefit is everywhere in evidence. The trust is clearly hit by the express provisions of section 13 and ineligible for exemption." 4. Being arrived, the appellant filed appeal against the impugned order of assessment. In the course of app…

Leela G. . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 6399/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.6399/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2003-04) Leela G.Lalwani Income Tax Officer 23(2)(4) J-301, Vardhaman Nagar बनाम/ C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhavan 2Nd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex Jn Of R.P., R.D. & M.G.Road, Vs. Mulund(W), Mumbai-400 080 Bandra, Mumbai-400 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaapl-4174-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenueby : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr Assessee By : Rajesh Athavale, Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 01/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Rajesh Athavale, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…upports our view. It is also noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while coming to a particular disapproved the decision taken in CIT vs Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 119 and also considered the decision in DIT vs Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC) and Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (SC). The relevant finding from the aforesaid order dated 15/02/2012 (Nova Promotors and Finlease Pvt. Ltd.) is reproduced hereunder:- …… 7 Leela G. Lalwani Assessment Year-2003-04 In the aforesaid order an elaborate discussion has been made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Likewise, the Indore Be…

Sigma Institute of Technology and Engineering, Vadodara vs. The Pr.CIT, Central, Surat

ITA 67/AHD/2016[-]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 67/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : Sigma Institute Of Technology & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Engineering , Income-Tax (Central), At Bakrol, Near Madhav Nagar, Surat. Ajwa-Nimeta Road, Tal. Waghodia, Dist. Vadodara-390010 Pan: Aajts7182G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(3)Section 132

…s exemption , where the founder trustees or their relatives personally benefited from the trust because the trust in that case loses its public character. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Director of Income tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280 that in the case of a charitable institution formed as a company every signatory to the Memorandum of Association has to be treated as founder, so that money lent to such a person without adequate security constitutes a benefit, which would lose the exemption for the company. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Action for Welfare…

Shree Parishram Education & Medical Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT(Central), Surat

ITA 610/AHD/2016[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jun 2018

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 610/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : Shree Parishram Education & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Medical Charitable Trust, Income-Tax (Central), At Bakrol, Near Madhav Nagar, Surat. Ajwa-Nimeta Road, Tal. Waghodia, Dist. Vadodara-390010 Pan: Aaatp9715H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(3)Section 132

…s exemption , where the founder trustees or their relatives personally benefited from the trust because the trust in that case loses its public character. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Director of Income tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280 that in the case of a charitable institution formed as a company Pr.CIT (Central) V. Shree Parishram Education & Medical Charitable Trust I.T.A. No.610/Ahd/2016 Page 7 of 15 every signatory to the Memorandum of Association has to be treated as founder, so that money lent to such a person without adequate security constitutes a benefit, which wo…

ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Blessing Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 271/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 250

…view of the facts, which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would have come to the determination in question." In DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse [2003] 259 ITR 280 / 126 Taxman 365 , the Supreme Court again reiterated the aforesaid position and held as under: - "As a principle, this court does not disturb findings of fact unless the findings of fact are perverse. It appears to us this is one of those exceptional cases where the correct conclusion recorded by the Assessing Officer, and affirmed by the appell…

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 884/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 884/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharat Diamond Bourse The Director Of Income- बनाम/ G Block, Bandra Kurla Tax(Exemptions), Ward V. Complex, Tower ‘H’, Ground 1(1), Piramal Chambers, Floor, Badra(East), Mumbai- 6 Th Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, 400051 Mumbai-400 012

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…s as were made before learned DIT(E) which are not repeated for sake of brevity. The assessee also contended that the activities of the assessee were held to be charitable by Hon’ble Apex Court in the assessee’s own case in DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280(SC) vide orders dated 16.12.2002. wherein Lordships held as under: “Section 2(15) of the Act defines "Charitable purpose" as including relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. In order to decide the first question, the circumstances under which the appellant-assessee came…

ITO (E) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai

ITA 4852/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 884/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharat Diamond Bourse The Director Of Income- बनाम/ G Block, Bandra Kurla Tax(Exemptions), Ward V. Complex, Tower ‘H’, Ground 1(1), Piramal Chambers, Floor, Badra(East), Mumbai- 6 Th Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, 400051 Mumbai-400 012

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…s as were made before learned DIT(E) which are not repeated for sake of brevity. The assessee also contended that the activities of the assessee were held to be charitable by Hon’ble Apex Court in the assessee’s own case in DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280(SC) vide orders dated 16.12.2002. wherein Lordships held as under: “Section 2(15) of the Act defines "Charitable purpose" as including relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. In order to decide the first question, the circumstances under which the appellant-assessee came…

ITO (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai

ITA 4437/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 884/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharat Diamond Bourse The Director Of Income- बनाम/ G Block, Bandra Kurla Tax(Exemptions), Ward V. Complex, Tower ‘H’, Ground 1(1), Piramal Chambers, Floor, Badra(East), Mumbai- 6 Th Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, 400051 Mumbai-400 012

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…s as were made before learned DIT(E) which are not repeated for sake of brevity. The assessee also contended that the activities of the assessee were held to be charitable by Hon’ble Apex Court in the assessee’s own case in DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280(SC) vide orders dated 16.12.2002. wherein Lordships held as under: “Section 2(15) of the Act defines "Charitable purpose" as including relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. In order to decide the first question, the circumstances under which the appellant-assessee came…

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (E) RG-1, Mumbai

ITA 2790/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 884/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharat Diamond Bourse The Director Of Income- बनाम/ G Block, Bandra Kurla Tax(Exemptions), Ward V. Complex, Tower ‘H’, Ground 1(1), Piramal Chambers, Floor, Badra(East), Mumbai- 6 Th Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, 400051 Mumbai-400 012

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…s as were made before learned DIT(E) which are not repeated for sake of brevity. The assessee also contended that the activities of the assessee were held to be charitable by Hon’ble Apex Court in the assessee’s own case in DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280(SC) vide orders dated 16.12.2002. wherein Lordships held as under: “Section 2(15) of the Act defines "Charitable purpose" as including relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. In order to decide the first question, the circumstances under which the appellant-assessee came…

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. Addl. C.I.T. (Exemption) RG-1, Mumbai

ITA 2789/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 884/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Bharat Diamond Bourse The Director Of Income- बनाम/ G Block, Bandra Kurla Tax(Exemptions), Ward V. Complex, Tower ‘H’, Ground 1(1), Piramal Chambers, Floor, Badra(East), Mumbai- 6 Th Floor, Lalbaug, Parel, 400051 Mumbai-400 012

Section 12ASection 2(15)

…s as were made before learned DIT(E) which are not repeated for sake of brevity. The assessee also contended that the activities of the assessee were held to be charitable by Hon’ble Apex Court in the assessee’s own case in DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse (2003) 259 ITR 280(SC) vide orders dated 16.12.2002. wherein Lordships held as under: “Section 2(15) of the Act defines "Charitable purpose" as including relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility. In order to decide the first question, the circumstances under which the appellant-assessee came…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…missioner of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, (1955) 28 ITR 579 (H.L.), Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 181, Director of Income-Tax v. Bharat Diamond Bourse, (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC), Lovely Exports P. Ltd. in (2008) 299 ITR 268 relied ; CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities Private Limited, (2011) 333 ITR 119 disapproved (Para 42) Conclusion : In the facts of the case, addition of Rs.1,18,50,000 made under section 68 of the Act as well as the consequential addition of Rs.2,96,250 representing commission paid to the parties who fa…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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) C.O.No.45/CTK/2015 (rising out of ITA No.325/CTK/2015) Assessment Year :2009-2010 M/s. Peoples Forum, Plot Vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Aayakar No.HIG 44, Dharma Vihar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. AAATP 2214 R (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwal, AR Reven…