Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust v. CIT

207 ITR 368High Court1994#4148 most cited

What is Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust v. CIT authority for?

Exemption under section 11 cannot be denied solely for the late filing of an audit report if the substantive conditions for the exemption are met. This case is cited in relation to the allowability of exemption under section 11.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust · 207 ITR 368 · section 11 · exemption · late filing · audit report · substantive conditions

Sections most often in play

Section 139(4)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 12ASection 139Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 139(4)section 11(1)section 271fsection 11(2)section 80ibsection 10aasection 143(1)(a)section 139(1)section 139section 11section 143(1)section 13

Judgments citing Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust v. CIT

Shri Rajesh Ajjavara, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

…take lenient view for the purpose of penalty and requested to drop the penalty proceedings. The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust vs. CIT [1994] 207 ITR 368 (Bom), wherein it was held that the sub s. (1) & (4) to section 139 of the Act have to be red together and on such reading, the inevitable conclusion is that the return made within the time specified in sub section (4) of the Act has to be considered as having made within the time prescribed in sub section (1) & sub section (2) to section 139…

Uma Developers, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Thane

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun kumar Singh
Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

…ould be construed liberally, hence, assessee’s claim of deduction should not be disallowed due to technical lapse. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust v. CIT, [1994] 207 ITR 368 (Bom); ii) ITO v/s Yash Builders, ITA no.809/Mum./2011, 31.01.2014; and iii) Anand Shelters Developers and Builders Pvt .Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.1606/Pun./2016, dated 20.10.2017. 6. The learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals), submitted, the provision of…

Income Tax Officer-25(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Nilima Abhijit Tannu, Mumbai

ITA 5923/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Bharti Singh, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vignesh Palkar
Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54F

…urt and Tribunal in the case of Smt.Rita Chetan Naik in (AY.2008-09) dated 10-7-2013, CIT V/s Rajesh Kumar Jain (2006) 286 ITR 274 (Gauhati), FathimaBai V/s ITO (2009) 32 DTR (Kar) 243, Trustees of Tulsidas Gopaji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust (1994) 207 ITR 368 (Bom), CIT V/s. Jagtar Singh Chawla (2013) 215 Taxman 154 and P.R.Kulkarni and Sons (HUF) V/s.Adll.CIT(2011) 135 TTJ (Bang) 630.1n the context of the above cited judgement it is pertinent to note that provisions of section 54 and 54F of the I.T.Act are similar and hence the above judgement can be applied to understand the provisions of section 54…

ACIT (Exemption), New Delhi vs. Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1246/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R S Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2011-12 Acit (Exemption) Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation Circle 1(1), E 2 Block Vs. B 60-61, Naraina Industrial Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan Area, Phase Ii Dr.Shyama Parsad New Delhi 110 028 Mukherjee Civic Centre New Delhi 110 002 Pan: Aaatj0402B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 139Section 143

…vs. Nagpur Hotel owners Association, reported in 247 ITR 201 (SC); • Association of Corporation and Apex Societies of Handlooms vs. ADIT, reported in (2013) 351 ITR 287; • Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust vs. CIT reported in 207 ITR 368. 2.2. It was contended by assessee that all the relevant information regarding the exercise of option under explanation 2 to section 11 (1) of the Act was filed along with the return of income. Assessee submitted that as it received donation aggregating to Rs.17,15,32,000/- in the last week of March 2012, it had to exercise the option under secti…

Hussein Ismail Dawoodani, Mumbai vs. ACIT CPC Bangalore, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 7466/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Syed Nadeem AhmedFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

…the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue now stands covered in favour of the assessee considering the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust (207 ITR 368) (Bom.). It was demonstrated before us that the said issue is actually covered by the said judgment and was decided in favour of the assessee. The same was repeatedly relied upon by the Tribunal also while adjudicating the identical issues in various decisions. Bringing our attention to an order of the Tribunal in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Uma Dev…

M/S the Philanthropic Society of the Orthodox Church, Kolkata vs. DDIT (Exemptions)-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year:2011-12

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…urn submitted under sub-s. (4) has to be regarded as a valid exercise of option within the time fixed for furnishing return under sub-s. (1) of s. 139.—Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust vs. CIT (1994) 118 CTR (Bom) 305 : (1994) 207 ITR 368 (Bom) : TC 23R.1592 relied on.” In our view, therefore, the action of ld. CIT(A) holding the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue is not sustainable in law. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 26/10/2016 (K.Narsimha Chary) Accountant Member *Dkp, Sr.P.S "दनां…

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Uma Developers, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 7718/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainincome Tax Officer-3(4) M/S. Uma Developers 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Shop No. 2, Mayur Chs Ltd. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. M.G. Road, Naupada Estate, Thane (W) 400601 Thane (W) - 400602 Pan - Aabfu8250F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.K. DhondialFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80I

…cements have interpreted these provisions to mean that section 139(1) is to be read with 139(4) of the Act and in this regard cited the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust (207 ITR 368 (Bom) and of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Yash Developers (ITA No. 809/Mum/2011). It was submitted that in view of the above, the learned CIT(A)’s order allowing the assessee’s appeal be upheld. 3.4.1 We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record, includ…

M/S. Fiberfill Engineers, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri A.T. Varkey:Asstt. Yr: 2010-11 M/S Fiberfill Engineers Vs. Acit Circle 38(1), C-9/9574, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. New Delhi-110070. (New Circle 63(1),Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aaaff 6313 P ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Gautam Jain Adv. P. Kamal Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Rehka Vimal Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2016. Date Of Order : 25/02/2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Rehka Vimal DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 22(1)Section 22(3)Section 54Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

…of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, which ever was earlier under sub-section (4) of section 139. c. High Court of Bombay vs. Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable & Chaleshwar Temple Trust Commissioner of Income Tax. 207 ITR 368. d. CIT Vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. Ltd. 77 ITR 518 (SC), , wherein it was, inter alia, held that section 22(3), equivalent to section 139(4) is merely a proviso to section 22(1) equivalent to section 139(1). e. The assessee further referred to various decisions of the Tribunal on this count, noted in AO’s order. (ii) The second reason given by…