Goyal v. DCIT

269 ITR 59High Court2004#4728 most cited

What is Goyal v. DCIT authority for?

Grant of exemption or renewal for charitable trusts is not automatic and requires verification of the genuineness of their activities. The assessing officer must be satisfied with the objects and activities of the trust before granting or renewing exemptions.

25

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

Also referred to as

Goyal v. DCIT · 269 ITR 59 · charitable trust exemption · renewal of exemption · genuineness of activities · section 80G · section 12AA · assessment procedure

Judgments citing Goyal v. DCIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. ATUL ASHOK PARAKH, AHMEDNAGAR

The appeal are allowed

ITA 304/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 69

…of accounts or that it was anything that became a way for the appellant to evade taxes. No enquiries or investigation was ever resorted to by the AO. 5.5Reliance is also placed on the following rulings:- (a) In the case of S.R Goel Vs. DCIT reported in (2004) 269 ITR 59 (Mum) 85), Hon'ble Mumbai tribunal held that the loose paper in itself has got no intrinsic value. When it is a mere entry on a rule sheet of a paper. Then there has to be circumstantial evidences to support that the entry relates to income. (b) In the case of Nishant Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1502/AHD/2015 dated 14/02/26017, whe…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. EMBASSY CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/458/2019HC Karnataka27 Jan 2022

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 12ASection 260Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…law Nos.1 to 3 involved in this appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Sofar as 4th substantial question of law is concerned, the 16 decision of the High Court in 'GANJAM NAGAPPA & SONS TRUST Vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX' 269 ITR 59 KAR has no application to the facts of the case and therefore, aforesaid question is also answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE RV…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S EMBASSY CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA/459/2019HC Karnataka27 Jan 2022

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 12ASection 260Section 80G

…law Nos.1 to 3 involved in this appeal are answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Sofar as 4th substantial question of law is concerned, the decision of the High Court in 'GANJAM NAGAPPA & SONS TRUST Vs. 4 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX' 269 ITR 59 KAR has no application to the facts of the case and therefore, aforesaid question is also answered against the revenue. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ss…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 577/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ritten on the said page were figures of capitation fees accepted from the students. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions wherein it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document in the cases of S. P. Goyal Vs. DCIT [269 ITR 59 (Mum.)(AT)] [Page 481-505 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 503 - from last para on the page) and CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [307 ITR 137 (Guj.)] [Page 506-511 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 508-511, Para 3 and 4). 21. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the statements of various persons recorded at the time of search wherein the persons such as Kalpana…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 576/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ritten on the said page were figures of capitation fees accepted from the students. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions wherein it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document in the cases of S. P. Goyal Vs. DCIT [269 ITR 59 (Mum.)(AT)] [Page 481-505 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 503 - from last para on the page) and CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [307 ITR 137 (Guj.)] [Page 506-511 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 508-511, Para 3 and 4). 21. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the statements of various persons recorded at the time of search wherein the persons such as Kalpana…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 575/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ritten on the said page were figures of capitation fees accepted from the students. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions wherein it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document in the cases of S. P. Goyal Vs. DCIT [269 ITR 59 (Mum.)(AT)] [Page 481-505 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 503 - from last para on the page) and CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [307 ITR 137 (Guj.)] [Page 506-511 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 508-511, Para 3 and 4). 21. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the statements of various persons recorded at the time of search wherein the persons such as Kalpana…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 574/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ritten on the said page were figures of capitation fees accepted from the students. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions wherein it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document in the cases of S. P. Goyal Vs. DCIT [269 ITR 59 (Mum.)(AT)] [Page 481-505 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 503 - from last para on the page) and CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [307 ITR 137 (Guj.)] [Page 506-511 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 508-511, Para 3 and 4). 21. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the statements of various persons recorded at the time of search wherein the persons such as Kalpana…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 573/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ritten on the said page were figures of capitation fees accepted from the students. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions wherein it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document in the cases of S. P. Goyal Vs. DCIT [269 ITR 59 (Mum.)(AT)] [Page 481-505 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 503 - from last para on the page) and CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [307 ITR 137 (Guj.)] [Page 506-511 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 508-511, Para 3 and 4). 21. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the statements of various persons recorded at the time of search wherein the persons such as Kalpana…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 572/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ritten on the said page were figures of capitation fees accepted from the students. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions wherein it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document in the cases of S. P. Goyal Vs. DCIT [269 ITR 59 (Mum.)(AT)] [Page 481-505 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 503 - from last para on the page) and CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [307 ITR 137 (Guj.)] [Page 506-511 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 508-511, Para 3 and 4). 21. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the statements of various persons recorded at the time of search wherein the persons such as Kalpana…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHIKSHANA PRASARAKA MANDALI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 571/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153C

…ritten on the said page were figures of capitation fees accepted from the students. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions wherein it has been held that no addition can be made on the basis of a dumb document in the cases of S. P. Goyal Vs. DCIT [269 ITR 59 (Mum.)(AT)] [Page 481-505 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 503 - from last para on the page) and CIT Vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah [307 ITR 137 (Guj.)] [Page 506-511 of PB No. 3] (Refer Page 508-511, Para 3 and 4). 21. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon the statements of various persons recorded at the time of search wherein the persons such as Kalpana…

M/S. AANIKA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 375/BANG/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2020

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Aanika Educational Trust, Cit(Exemptions), P-48 Sector 10 Lic Colony, 8Th Cross, Bangalore. 6Th Main, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Vs. Bangalore – 560 075. Pan No : Aafta 2446 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. C. Ramesh , Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat) Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2020

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh , CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 12ASection 80Section 80G

…of the objects and activities of the trust since there is no sufficient activities carried on by the assessee. Accordingly, he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ganjam Nagappa and Sons Trust Vs. DIT(E) reported in 269 ITR 59 wherein it was held that grant of exemption by renewal is not automatic in the character. Further, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Self Employers Institution Vs. CIT reported in 247 ITR 18 wherein it was held that where there is no material before the Commissioner to be satisfied of the genuineness of…

M/S. KOURAVA EDUCATION SOCIETY,HAVERI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1821/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Shri Sanketh Nayak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

…self about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- a) “The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Ganjam Nagappa and Son Trust Vs. DIT€ reported in 269 ITR 59 have held that “Grant of exemption or renewal is not automatic in character. b) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Self Employers Institution Vs. CIT reported in 247 ITR 18 has held that where there is no material before the Commissioner to be satisfied of the genuineness of the activities of the trust is a valid reason for rejection. In the…

M/S. MYSURU MATTU CHAMARAJANAGARA JILLA ARYA EDIGARA SANGHA,MYSURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2284/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri O.P. Meena, Am

For Appellant: Sri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT-DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…lf about the objects of the company or institution and the genuineness of its activities. In this connection reliance what is placed on the following decision:- a) The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Ganjam Nagappa and Sun trust vs DIT (E) reported in 269 ITR 59 has 3 M/s.Mysuru Matta C J A E Sangha. held that “grant of exemption or renewal is not automatic in character. Therefore considering the facts as detailed above it is not a fit case for recognition under section 80G. Hence application for grant of recognition under section 80G(5)(vi) of the IT Act 1961 is hereby rejected.” Aggrieved by aforestated…

M/S. JITO BELGAUM CHAPTER,BELAGAVI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2091/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019 – 20

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT – DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…self about the objects of the company or institution and the genuineness of its activities. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- a) The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Ganjam Nagappa and Sun trust vs DDIT (E) reported in 269 ITR 59 has held that “grant of exemption or renewal is not automatic in character.” Aggrieved by aforestated rejection, assessee is in appeal before us now. 3. Ld. AR submitted that, its application for grant of registration under section 12 AA of the Act is valid, as on date of rejection of application for recognition under section 80 G of the Act. Ld.…

SRI KRISHNARAJENDRA CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2011/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member Sri.Krishnarajendra Charitable The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Trust, Bangalore Bangalore Palace Compound, Vs. Jayamahal Road, Jc Nagar, Bangalure, Karnataka, 560006 Pan : Aabtc808K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: R.E. Balasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra CIT DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…lf about the objects of the company or institution and the genuineness of its activities. In this connection reliance what is placed on the following decision:- a) The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Ganjam Nagappa and Sun trust vs DIT (E) reported in 269 ITR 59 has held that “grant of exemption or renewal is not automatic in character. Therefore considering the facts as detailed above it is not a fit case for recognition under section 80G. Hence application for grant of recognition under section 80G(5)(vi) of the IT Act 1961 is hereby rejected.” Aggrieved by aforestated rejection, assessee is in appeal b…

M/S. CHIRANTHANA,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2014/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member M/S. Chiranthana The Commissioner Of F-25, 1St Floor, Income Tax (Exemptions) Shriram Sardhana Apartments, Bangalore Behind M.S Ramaiya Residency, Vs. Bangalure, Karnataka, 560006 Pan : Aabtc808K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: R.E. Balasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra CIT DR
Section 12ASection 80Section 80G(5)(vi)

…t is not possible to verify the genuineness of the objects and the activities of the trust. In this connection, reliance is placed on the following decisions:- a) The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Ganjam Nagappa and Sun trust vs DDIT (E) reported in 269 ITR 59 has held that “grant of exemption or renewal is not automatic in character. b) Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of self employers institution vs CIT reported in 247 ITR 18 has held that where there is no material before Commissioner to be satisfied of the genuineness of the activities of the trust is valid reason for rejection.” Aggrieved by afor…

HTR TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 922/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2019AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Htr Trust, No. 15, “Vini”, 2Nd Cross Road, Rms Layout, Sanjay The Commissioner Of Income Nagar, Vs. Tax (Exemptions), Rmv Extension, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 094 Pan: Aabth7884A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra R. Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…and the activities of the trust and based on this logic, he decided the issue against the assessee and in the process, he has followed one judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Ganjam Nagappa and Son Trust Vs. DIT (E) as reported in 269 ITR 59 and also followed a judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Self Employers Institution Vs. CIT as reported in 247 ITR 18. He submitted that on page no. 20 of the paper book is the provisional balance sheet of the assessee trust as on 31.03.2019 and on page no. 21 of the paper book is the provisional Income & Expenditure Acco…

KHAGOL MANDAL,MUMBAI vs. D.I.T. (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4538/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri. Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri. R.P.Meena & Harkamal Sohi
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…dal 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has defended the decision of the Director by placing reliance thereon and also reiterating the reference made by the Director to the following decisions :- (i) Ganjam Nagappa & Son Trust vs DIT, 269 ITR 59 (Karnataka); (ii) Vishal Khanna Public Charitable Trust vs UOI, 356 ITR 442 (Allahabad); (iii) Madani Musafir Khana Welfare Society vs CIT, 264 ITR 481 (Patna); and, (iv) Vishwa Budha Parishad vs CIT, 264 ITR 357 (Patna) 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. As our discussion in the earlier paras show, the moot question is as to…

M/S NYINGMA MOINLAM CHENMO INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION ,MYSORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2221/BANG/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2018AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80(5)(vi)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…. In the absence of relevant details, it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the activities of trust in this case.” 5. The CIT(E) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Karntaka High Court in the case of M/s Ganjam Nagappa & Son Trust Vs. DIT, 269 ITR 59 (Kar) and the Kerala High Court in the case of Self Employers Institution Vs. CIT 247 ITR 18 (ker) wherein it has been held that charitable nature of the objects of the trust and genuineness of its activities are required to be seen for grant of approval u/s.80G of the Act. For the above reasons, the CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee…

PENOR RINPOCHE CHARITY FOUNDATION ,MYSORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2220/BANG/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2018AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri C.H Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80(5)(vi)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…. In the absence of relevant details, it is not possible to verify the genuineness of the activities of trust in this case.” 5. The CIT(E) also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Karntaka High Court in the case of M/s Ganjam Nagappa & Son Trust Vs. DIT, 269 ITR 59 (Kar) and the Kerala High Court in the case of Self Employers Instittion Vs. CIT 247 ITR 18 (ker) wherein it has been held that charitable nature of the objects of the trust and genuineness of its activities are required to be seen for grant of approval u/s.80G of the Act. For the above reasons, the CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2