← All Phrases

“Section 12(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 12Section 12(1)56 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 12(1) is Ashok Pai v. CIT (292 ITR 11), cited in 812 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 12(1)

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
264 ITR 110 · 2003 · High Court
398
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on assets for which the cost has been fully allowed as an application of income under Section 11 in previous years, when computing the income of a charitable trust. Charitable trusts are also entitled to carry forward their deficit.

CIT v. De Beers India Minerals (P.) Ltd.
346 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
371
citing judgments

For fees for technical or consultancy services to 'make available' technical knowledge or know-how under a DTAA, the service must transmit such knowledge, allowing the recipient to derive an enduring benefit and utilize it independently in the future.

Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT
101 ITR 234 · 1975 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.

Sedco Forex International Drill. Inc. v. CIT
12 SCC 717 · 2005 · Supreme Court
285
citing judgments

A cardinal principle of tax law is that the law in force for the relevant assessment year applies unless expressly or necessarily provided otherwise. A retrospective tax provision stated to be 'for the removal of doubts' is not presumed retrospective if it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood.

DIT v. Ericsson A.B
343 ITR 470 · 2012 · High Court
256
citing judgments

Payments for the use of copyrighted software or reimbursement of data processing costs do not constitute 'royalty' under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act or Article 12(3) of a DTAA where there is no transfer of copyright or rendering of services that "make available" technical knowledge. This position was later upheld by the Supreme Court.

(i) Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT
394 ITR 80 · 2017 · Supreme Court
200
citing judgments

This case provides foundational principles that illuminate the contours of the concept of 'Permanent Establishment' (PE) under tax treaties, especially regarding a 'fixed place' PE.

CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied Industries
201 ITR 325 · 1993 · High Court
195
citing judgments

The requirement to file an audit report along with the income tax return, as specified in provisions like Section 80J(6A) or 80-IA(7), is directory and not mandatory. Substantial compliance is achieved if the audit report is submitted at any time before the assessment is framed or completed, and benefits should not be denied merely due to a delay in furnishing it.

Judgments citing Section 12(1)

D. S. Foundation, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 589/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur23 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM, आयकरअपील सं. / ITA Nos.588 & 589/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear :2024-25 | D.S. Foundation | बनाम | CIT Exemption | |------------------------------------|------|---------------| | Office No. 20 Shrinath Mall, | Vs. | Jaipur | | Near Bajrang Garh Krishna Ganj, | | | | Ajmer | | | | स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAETD 3273 C | | | | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent | निधर्धारित

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12A

with the department. 7. It is humbly requested that the Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee under section 12(1)(ac)(vi), it is further requested that the cancellation of provisional registration was not valid. 8.The rejection of provisional registration granted under section 12 ... principle of natural justice, therefore it is humbly requested to quash the order passed by Commissioner Exemption and grant us the registration under section 12(1)(ac)(vi) as the objectives of the trust are social welfare, helping needy, general public utility etc. 9.No opportunity of being heard was granted

Narayani Siddhar Peedam Charitable Trust, Vellore vs. DDIT (Exemptions-III), Chennai

ITA 1532/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1532/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Narayani Siddhar Peedam Charitable Trust, Rep. By Trustee, K. Soundararajan, Thirumalaikodi, Ariyur Village, Vellore 632 055. Pan: Aaatn 3254F (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement The Deputy Director Of Vs. Income Tax, (Exemptions – Iii) Chennai (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri N. Muralikumaran, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Mythili, Jcit : 25.11.2025 : 26.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit(A)-5, Mumbai Dated 29.03.2025, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. :- 2 -:

Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G(5)(vi)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

Saidattavikas Saidham Charitable Trust, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 369/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 368 & 369/JPR/2025 u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2024-25 Saidatta Vikas Saidham Charitable Trust Khata No. 283 New, 283 Old, 283 Khasra No.2279 & 2280, Pushkar, Ajmer 305 001 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABGTS 4072 D अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : None राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 80G

with the department. 6) It is humbly requested that the Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee under section 12(1)(ac)(vi), it is further requested that the cancellation of provisional registration was not valid. The cancellation of provisional registration is not just ... assessee before cancellation of provisional registration, this is beyond the principle of natural justice. 7) The rejection of provisional registration granted under section 12(1) (ac)(vi) to the assessee is clear violation of principle of natural justice, therefore it is humbly requested to quash the order passed by Commissioner

Saidattavikas Saidham Charitable Trust, Ajmer vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 368/JPR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 May 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 368 & 369/JPR/2025 u/s 12AB and 80G of the Act निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2024-25 Saidatta Vikas Saidham Charitable Trust बनाम | The CIT-Exemption, Khata No. 283 New, 283 Old, 283 Khasra Vs. Jaipur. No.2279 & 2280, Pushkar, Ajmer 305 001 स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABGTS 4072 D अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : None प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent राजस्व की ओरसे /

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 80G

with the department. 6) It is humbly requested that the Commissioner Exemption has wrongly cancelled the provisional registration granted to the assessee under section 12(1)(ac)(vi), it is further requested that the cancellation of provisional registration was not valid. The cancellation of provisional registration is not just ... assessee before cancellation of provisional registration, this is beyond the principle of natural justice. 7) The rejection of provisional registration granted under section 12(1) (ac)(vi) to the assessee is clear violation of principle of natural justice, therefore it is humbly requested to quash the order passed by Commissioner

Satyendranath Bose Educational & Social Welfare Trust, Kolkata vs. Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2339/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2339/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Satyendranath Bose Educational Vs Ward-1(3), Exemption, Kolkata & Social Welfare Trust, 19/2/5, Amar Chakraborthy Rd. Ac Road Khagra, Berhampur-742103 Pan No. : Aaots 9288 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.Cit-Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 24.09.2024, For The Assessment Year 2018-2019 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac, U/S 250 Confirming The Additions & Disallowances Made By Learned Assessing Officer Is Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao Denying The Benefit Of Exemption Claimed U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act. 3. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Lower Authorities Failed To Correctly Appreciate That The Assessee Was Indeed Maintaining & Aiding Education Institutions & It Existed Solely For Educational Purposes Without Any Motive For Profit & Since Its Annual Receipts Did Not Exceed The Limit Of Rs.1 Crores, It Had Rightly Claimed Exemption U/S 10(23C) (Iiiad) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Husssain, Addl.CIT-Sr. DR
Section 10Section 250

cannot ipso facto lead to conclusion that it cannot be considered to be corpus contribution. It is true that in terms of Section 12(1) read with Section 11(1)(d) of the Act, what is not includible in the total income of a charitable institution is the receipt

Sant Shiromani Swami Lilashah Trust, Banaskantha vs. The CIT(Exemption), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.63/Ahd/2025 & 64/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : - Sant Shiromani Swami The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Lilashah Trust Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. Deesa, Disa Bazar S.O. Deesa Banaskantha – 385 535 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abcts 9755 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Urjita Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Are Two Separate Appeals Filed By The Assessee Relating To Registration Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) & Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. Since Both The Appeals Involve Common Facts & Issues, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Urjita Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 12(1)Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “ए“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सु"ी सुिच"ा का"ले