← All Phrases

“Section 11(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 11Section 11(4)104 judgments

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 653/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Commerce, Surat Art Silk Mills (where predominant object test was applied), Thanti Trust and the law in this regard including the provisions of section 11(4) and 11(4A) and the distinction between these two sections. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also interpreted the relevance of CBDT Circular No. 1/2009

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 652/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Commerce, Surat Art Silk Mills (where predominant object test was applied), Thanti Trust and the law in this regard including the provisions of section 11(4) and 11(4A) and the distinction between these two sections. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also interpreted the relevance of CBDT Circular No. 1/2009

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 651/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Commerce, Surat Art Silk Mills (where predominant object test was applied), Thanti Trust and the law in this regard including the provisions of section 11(4) and 11(4A) and the distinction between these two sections. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also interpreted the relevance of CBDT Circular No. 1/2009

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 650/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Commerce, Surat Art Silk Mills (where predominant object test was applied), Thanti Trust and the law in this regard including the provisions of section 11(4) and 11(4A) and the distinction between these two sections. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also interpreted the relevance of CBDT Circular No. 1/2009

CHHATTISGARH HOUSING BOARD,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, RAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed as above for statistical purposes

ITA 649/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 649, 650, 651, 652 & 653/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Sector-19, Paryavaas Bhawan, Tax (Exemption) Circle, Income Tax Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492002 Office, Quarter No.1, Type-V, Income Tax Residential Colony, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aaeca9783D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Shubham Mehta, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, Cit-Dr Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 17/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Raj Kumar Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 250

Commerce, Surat Art Silk Mills (where predominant object test was applied), Thanti Trust and the law in this regard including the provisions of section 11(4) and 11(4A) and the distinction between these two sections. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also interpreted the relevance of CBDT Circular No. 1/2009

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(EXEM), CIRCLE - 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 4324/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Appellant-Trust\nare a property held under trust, wherefrom all the activities including the\nalleged business activities are being undertaken and therefore, Section 11(4)\nshall be applicable and Section 11(4A) shall have no applicability.\n7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KCT PAPERS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3380/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit, Circle 5 (1) Vs. M/S. Kct Papers Limited, New Delhi. Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi – 110 001. (Pan : Aacck4937D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate Shri Deepesh Jain, Advocate Shri Tavish Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Order : 05.12.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Viii, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.03.2014For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Company Belongs To The Thapar Group Established By Late Lala Karam Chand Thapar. There Was A Family Settlement Between The Various Constituents Of The Karam Chand Thapar Family As A Result Of Which Revenue-Organization/Restructuring Of The Group Dated 27Th April, 2001. The Re April, 2001. The Re-Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Organization Of The Group Companies & Trusts Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala Was Made Into Four Groups, As Under, Each Headed By The Sons Of Late Lala K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand T K.C. Thapar. The Family Tree Of Karam Chand Thapar Family Is Explained As Hapar Family Is Explained As Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart: Under In The Form Of A Diagrammatic Chart:

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 391

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI ANUBHAV

M/S. M.P. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT EXCEMPTION , BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 164/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Dec 2025
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

case of a business undertaking held under trust, its “income“\nwill be the income as shown in the accounts of the undertaking.\nUnder section 11(4), any income of the business undertaking\ndetermined by the Income-tax Officer, in accordance with the provisions\nof the Act, which is in excess

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5429/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

jewellery. The AO issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why its case is not hit by Section 11(4) and First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the activities undertaken are for "imparting education" amongst

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5428/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

jewellery. The AO issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why its case is not hit by Section 11(4) and First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the activities undertaken are for "imparting education" amongst

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5427/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

jewellery. The AO issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why its case is not hit by Section 11(4) and First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the activities undertaken are for "imparting education" amongst

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5426/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

jewellery. The AO issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why its case is not hit by Section 11(4) and First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the activities undertaken are for "imparting education" amongst

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5425/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

jewellery. The AO issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why its case is not hit by Section 11(4) and First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the activities undertaken are for "imparting education" amongst

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5424/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

jewellery. The AO issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why its case is not hit by Section 11(4) and First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the activities undertaken are for "imparting education" amongst

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5423/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

jewellery. The AO issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why its case is not hit by Section 11(4) and First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the activities undertaken are for "imparting education" amongst

GIA INDIA,MUMBAI vs. A/DCIT (E) - 1(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5422/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri. Swapnil Choudhary Sr. AR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(4)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 25Section 250

jewellery. The AO issue a show cause notice requiring the assessee to explain as to why its case is not hit by Section 11(4) and First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. The assessee submitted before the AO that the activities undertaken are for "imparting education" amongst

NALANDA GROUP OF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)EXEMPTION, , KOLKATA

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

ITA 140/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY ,BHOPAL vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 423/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

nature of 'business' incidental and therefore CBDT Circular No.\n5-P (LXX-6) of 1968 dated 19.06.1968 applies. Accordingly, placing\nreliance on section 11(4)/(4A) and CBDT Circular, the AO viewed that the\nquantum of 'standard exemption' should be computed on 'net income' [i.e.\ngross receipts (-) expenses] of hostel/mess ... business undertaking, held under trust, its\n\"income\" will be the income as shown in the accounts of the\nundertaking. Under section 11(4), any income of the business\nundertaking determined by the ITO, in accordance with the\nprovisions of the Act, which is in excess of the income

MAHARASHTRA EX-SERVICEMEN CORPORATION,PUNE vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 603/PUN/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandramaharashtra Ex-Servicemen Cit(Exemption), Pune Corporation Ltd. Vs. 2Nd Floor, Raigad Building, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aadcm4072C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 15-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)

main object, yet the position of the Income Tax Act needs to be considered. He submitted that 11 as per the provisions of section 11(4) of the Act, even a business is permitted under the charity, provided books of account are separately maintained. 10. So far as the objection

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: \nMrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायापीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR\n\nडा0

Showing 1–20 of 104 · Page 1 of 6