Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust Mhow v. CIT

163 ITR 832High Court1987#11169 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 2(13)section 11(4)section 2(45)section 12a(a)accumulation of incomesection 11(1)(a)section 11(2)section 11(1)section 2(15)childapplication of incomesection 12aa

Judgments citing Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust Mhow v. CIT

DCIT(Exemption) Circle-1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Board of School Text Book, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the M

ITA 23/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…cation of income is not to be taken into account. It was also held that having regard to the clear pronouncement of their lordship of the Supreme Court difficult to accept that outgoing which are in the nature of application of income are to be excluded. iii 163 ITR 832 (MP) Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust- This judgment was delivered on 28 July, 1986. I was held that the reference in sub-section (1)(a) of section 11 is to income not to "total income as defined in section 2(45) of the act. iv 131 ITD 335 (Lucknow) Krishi Utpadan Mandal Samil The judgment was delivered on 7 June, 2010. In this judgment also the p…

DCIT (Exmp) Circle-1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Board of School Text Book, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the M

ITA 22/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…cation of income is not to be taken into account. It was also held that having regard to the clear pronouncement of their lordship of the Supreme Court difficult to accept that outgoing which are in the nature of application of income are to be excluded. iii 163 ITR 832 (MP) Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust- This judgment was delivered on 28 July, 1986. I was held that the reference in sub-section (1)(a) of section 11 is to income not to "total income as defined in section 2(45) of the act. iv 131 ITD 335 (Lucknow) Krishi Utpadan Mandal Samil The judgment was delivered on 7 June, 2010. In this judgment also the p…

DCIT(E), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Board of School Text Book, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the M

ITA 21/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…cation of income is not to be taken into account. It was also held that having regard to the clear pronouncement of their lordship of the Supreme Court difficult to accept that outgoing which are in the nature of application of income are to be excluded. iii 163 ITR 832 (MP) Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust- This judgment was delivered on 28 July, 1986. I was held that the reference in sub-section (1)(a) of section 11 is to income not to "total income as defined in section 2(45) of the act. iv 131 ITD 335 (Lucknow) Krishi Utpadan Mandal Samil The judgment was delivered on 7 June, 2010. In this judgment also the p…

DCIT (Exmp) Circle 1 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Board of School Text Book, Gandhinagar

In the result, both the M

ITA 20/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…cation of income is not to be taken into account. It was also held that having regard to the clear pronouncement of their lordship of the Supreme Court difficult to accept that outgoing which are in the nature of application of income are to be excluded. iii 163 ITR 832 (MP) Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust- This judgment was delivered on 28 July, 1986. I was held that the reference in sub-section (1)(a) of section 11 is to income not to "total income as defined in section 2(45) of the act. iv 131 ITD 335 (Lucknow) Krishi Utpadan Mandal Samil The judgment was delivered on 7 June, 2010. In this judgment also the p…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 374/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…myopic view of the entire scheme of taxation of charitable trusts and is a fractured response to a statutory imperative. This view is supported by the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman Trust, Mhow v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 832. A similar view has also been taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Birla janahlt Trust (1994) 208 ITR 372, where the Court held that the expenditure on salaries and miscellaneous expenses for the purpose of 7 ITA No.374/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2012-13 carrying out the objects and purposes of the Trust must be considered as application…

M/S. C R Nagappa and Sons, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

Accordingly these Grounds raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s CR Nagappa and Sons, The Dy. Commissioner of #16, Kasturba Road, Income-Tax (CPC), Bengaluru. Bengaluru. Vs. PAN – AABAS 1764 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, C.A Revenue by : Shri Kannan Narayanan, JCIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 19-07-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17-08-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 16/09/2020 by the Ld.CIT(A)-14, B…

Jan Priya Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O.(Exemption)-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 903/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jan Priya Trust Vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Ward- (Pan: Aaatj0335M) 1(1), Kolkata.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

…o be taken and the same in the present case is Rs. 3,42,174. Twentyfive per cent. of the above income is to be allowed as a deduction. Similar view has also been taken by the hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in ParsiZorastrianAnjuman Trust Mhow v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 832 (MP). No reason whatsoever has been given by the Revenue authorities for deducting Rs. 2,17,126 in this case for purposes of section 11(1)(a). The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue did not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. The circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also been considered by the…

Shree Ram Trust, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2496/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)

…e taken and the same in the present case is Rs. 3,42,174. Twenty­five per cent. of the above income is to be allowed as a deduction. Similar view has also been taken by the hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust Mhow v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 832 (MP). No reason whatsoever has been given by the Revenue authorities for deducting Rs. 2,17,126 in this case for purposes of section 11(1)(a). The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue did not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. The circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also been considered by the…

Public Education Society, Bangalore vs. Dy.DIT, Bangalore

ITA 664/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Manmohanassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. Prathik, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Sreehari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12A

…be taken and the same in the present case is Rs. 3,42,174. Twenty-five per cent of the above income is to be allowed as a deduction. Similar view has also been taken by the hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust Mhow v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 832. No reason whatsoever has Page 8 of 9 been given by the revenue authorities for deducting Rs. 2,17,126 in this case for purposes of section 11(1)(a). The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue did not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. The circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes has also been considered…

Parsi Zorastrian Anjuman Trust Mhow v. CIT (163 ITR 832) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax