How many judgments cite H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT (59 ITR 582), spanning 2012 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(23C), Section 11, Section 12A, Section 12AA, Section 13(1)(d)(iii), Section 147.

H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT

59 ITR 582Supreme Court of India1966#3937 most cited

What is H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT authority for?

For income to be exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, it must be 'actually applied' for charitable or religious purposes; notional expenditure does not qualify. The burden of proving exemption lies with the assessee.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2024.

Also referred to as

H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT · section 11(1)(a) · application of income · charitable purposes · religious purposes · actually applied · notional expenditure · burden of proof · exemption

Sections most often in play

Section 10(23C)Section 11 Section 12A Section 12AA Section 13(1)(d)(iii)Section 147 Section 148 Section 2(24)(x)

Issues it is cited on

section 11(1)(d)section 11(1)(a)section 11(2)section 11(1)live link application of income income escaping assessment regular assessment capital expenditure revenue expenditure escapement of income first appeal

Judgments citing H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

…cific purpose for a specific period subject to fulfilment of certain conditions prescribed under the law. The legislature has employed the word 'applied' in section 11(1)(a). The Apex Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 held that the word 'applied' in the context of section 11 means the income is 'actually applied' for the charitable or religious purposes of the trust. Therefore, in view of decision of the Apex Court, income of the current year 'actually applied' for charitable or religious purposes subject to fulfilment of other conditions will be exempt under s…

CHATHANKANDATH USHA,KOOTANAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 605/COCH/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cochin20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Smt. Jamuna Devi, Sr.D.R

Section 250

…is exempt from tax, i.e., satisfying the condition for exemption, is on the assessee. The law in the matter is well-settled, for which we may refer to Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC), to cite some; and accords that the principle that it is the assessee who is to prove it’s return and the claims preferred thereby, being in the intimate know of its affairs Chathankandath Usha, Kootanad Page 4 of 5 ((CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC) (als…

DR. C USHA,PALAKKAD vs. ITO WARD-3, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmidr. C. Usha Income Tax Officer Modern Hospital Ward -3, Palakkad Guruvayur Road, Koottanad Vs. Palakkad 679533 [Pan:Aafpu8363H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Venkitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…is exempt from tax, i.e., satisfying the condition for exemption, is on the assessee. The law in the matter is well-settled, for which we may refer to Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 6 GSTR-OL 46 (SC), to cite some; and accords that the principle that it is the assessee who is to prove it’s return and the claims preferred thereby, being in the intimate know of its affairs ((CIT v. Calcutta Agency Ltd. [1951] 19 ITR 191 (SC)(also see: Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. v. CIT…

JAGADISH KUMAR P.V (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE REMA PADMAJA BAI),TRIVANDRUM vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1) , TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. S. Seethalakshmijagadish Kumar P.V. Asst. Cit, Circle - 2(1) (L/H Of Rema Padmaja Bai) Thiruvananthapuram Sree, T.C. 50/899(1), Kalady Vs. Hsra A-56, Karamana P.O. Thiruvananthapuram [Pan:Aempp5283J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 69

…possession or invested by him), inasmuch as he is in the intimate know of his affairs, lies. And where not so proved, liable to be assessed as income (Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC); H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); CIT v. Joseph John [1968] 67 ITR 74 (SC)). This, as would be apparent, is also implicit in the statement of law afore-noted with reference to the decision in P. Mohankala (supra), which is itself in agreement with several decisions by the Apex Court in the matter. This would also put in context our finding it very queer that the amount expla…

CARMEL CONVENT ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, TRIVANDRAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petition is dismissed

ITA 689/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 634 (SC)); and which can further only be on the basis of proper materials (CIT v. R. Venkataswamy Naidu [1956] 29 ITR 529 (SC)). The law gets more strict in case of exemption provisions (H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); CIT v. Joseph John [1968] 67 ITR 74 (SC)). In Udaipur Sahkari Upbhokta Thok Bhandar Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 315 ITR 21 (SC), it stands clarified that the onus to show that it’s claim/s falls within the four corners of the exemption provision is on the assessee, which agrees with the latest decision by the constitutional bench decision of the Apex…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

…L, which reflected a much lower deduction; the primary burden to prove it’s returns and its claim for exemption/deduction being on the assessee (Govindarajulu Mudaliar (A.) v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (810)(SC); H.E. Nizam Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC); CIT v. Joseph John [1968] 67 ITR 74 (SC)).This is a clear case of non-disclosure by the assessee, whose conduct in, though aware, maintaining silence, could in fact be regarded as dishonest. There is as such no correspondence between the facts of the two cases, only in the context of which the observations relied upon become relevant and can…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

M/S. KSRTC PASSENGERS ACCIDENT RELIEF FUND TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 374/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese

Section 11

…ia being undisputed, no such substantial question of law arises for our further consideration.” 9.6 Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Trustee of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Religious Endowment Trust reported in (1966) 59 ITR 582 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, it was not correct to equate the words, “applied” for the words “spent”. Hon’ble Supreme Page 8 of 18 ITA Nos. 373 & 374/Bang/2023 Court observed that if the legislature intended that the amounts are actually to be spent, in that year, nothing prevented them from using the word “spent” in section 11 it…

M/S. KSRTC PASSENGERS ACCIDENT RELIEF FUND TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

ITA 373/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Joseph Varghese

Section 11

GUARDIAN NUTRITION & HEALTH SUPPLEMENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6738/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

…he assessing authority that he is entitled to obtain deduction in accordance with the taxing statute. The burden is on the assessee to prove that a particular class of income is exempt from taxation. (See H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC). It was held in Nizam's case [1966] 59 ITR 582 (SC), that the burden is on the Revenue authorities to show that the income is liable to tax under the statute; but the onus of showing that a particular class of income is exempt from taxation lies on the assessee. To earn the exemption, the assessee has to establish that his case clearly 5 a…

ICLEI LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR SUSTAINABILITY SOUTH ASIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3408/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: ShriAnandChaudhari, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

…the provisions laid down. The Assessing Officer while relying upon the judgment of jurisdictional High court in the case of (NASCOM){supra}, wherein the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HEH Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust vs. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 582 to the effect that the state did not like to forgo the revenue in favour of charity outside the country, was followed, held that income applied outside India cannot be considered as application of income of the trust in India for charitable purposes and consequently disallowed the said expenses of Rs.73,11,771/- incurred on Boarding and Lodging on…

M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX RANGE-17, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 945/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dev Ratan Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…IT v National Association of Software & Services Companies [345 ITR 362 Del] = [TS-313-HC-2012(Delhi)-O], was also considered and the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT, [59 ITR 582 SC] = [TS- 5039-SC-1965-0], held as follows:- "7. On vigilant perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), we are in agreement with the contention of the Id. Counsel of the assessee that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from that Pa…

M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION MEDICAL ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 946/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ssociation of Software & Services Companies [345 ITR 362 Del] = [TS-313-HC-2012(Delhi)-O], was also considered and the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Page 27 of 32 Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT, [59 ITR 582 SC] = [TS- 5039-SC-1965-0], held as follows:- "7. On vigilant perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), we are in agreement with the contention of the Id. Counsel of the assessee that the facts of the present case are distinguishable from that ca…

INDIAN CANCER SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E)- II (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 1857/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1857 To 1859/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Indian Cancer Society बिधम/ Asstt. Director Of Income 74 Jerbai Wadia Road, Parel, Tax (Exemption)-Ii(1) Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Mumbai. Lalbaug, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaati0001K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala/Sukhsagar Syal (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Mallikarjun Utture (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2019

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/SukhsagarFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture (DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 14Section 143(2)

…purposes of the trust or accumulated or set apart for such application at a future date not exceeding 25 per cent of the income from such property. The word 'applied' was construed by the Supreme Court in H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT [1966] 59 ITR 582 and the Supreme Court stated that it envisaged actual application of the income for the purposes of the trust. Similarly, the word 'accumulated' meant the income so set apart during the year for future spending on such purpose. There can be no actual application or setting apart or accumulation of income derived from trust property unless it is ac…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

…the ld. DR in the case of CIT v. National Association of Software & Services Companies, 345 ITR 362 (Del),was also considered and the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT, 59 ITR 582, held as follows:- ITA Nos.2707 to 2709/Bang/2017 CO Nos.40 to 42/Band/2018 Page 38 of 41 “7. On vigilant perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), we are in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the facts of the…

FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN SPORTING TALENT (FIST),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BAGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1711/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…the ld. DR in the case of CIT v. National Association of Software & Services Companies, 345 ITR 362 (Del),was also considered and the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT, 59 ITR 582, held as follows:- ITA Nos.1665 & 1666 and 1710 & 1711/Bang/2017 Page 13 of 16 “7. On vigilant perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), we are in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the facts of the present ca…

FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN SPORTING TALENT (FIST),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1710/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…the ld. DR in the case of CIT v. National Association of Software & Services Companies, 345 ITR 362 (Del),was also considered and the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT, 59 ITR 582, held as follows:- ITA Nos.1665 & 1666 and 1710 & 1711/Bang/2017 Page 13 of 16 “7. On vigilant perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), we are in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the facts of the present ca…

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN SPORTING TALENT (IFST), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1666/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…the ld. DR in the case of CIT v. National Association of Software & Services Companies, 345 ITR 362 (Del),was also considered and the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT, 59 ITR 582, held as follows:- ITA Nos.1665 & 1666 and 1710 & 1711/Bang/2017 Page 13 of 16 “7. On vigilant perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), we are in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the facts of the present ca…

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMTIONS), CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALOE vs. M/S FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN SPORTING TALENT (FIST), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1665/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

…the ld. DR in the case of CIT v. National Association of Software & Services Companies, 345 ITR 362 (Del),was also considered and the Tribunal following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust v. CIT, 59 ITR 582, held as follows:- ITA Nos.1665 & 1666 and 1710 & 1711/Bang/2017 Page 13 of 16 “7. On vigilant perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.E.H. Nizam's Religious Endowment Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), we are in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel of the assessee that the facts of the present ca…

ITO (E), DELHI vs. ESCORTS CARDIAC DISEASE HOSPITAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly

ITA 6439/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. R.M. Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K. Hauthang, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

…ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT(E) vs. National Association of Software and Services Companies by referring to the judgment of Bench of three Judges of Hon’ble Apex Court in HEH Nizam’s Religious Endowment Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1966) 59 ITR 582 cited by the AO in his order vide para 3.2. 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Section 11© is not attracted since the charitable activities were carried out in India i.e. conducting the seminar and the honarium was paid as per law which required the certificate of an Accountant for making the remittance. 7.2 We…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2