← 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)

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 63/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

Jains Greens Acres Flat Owners Association, Chennai vs. CIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 861/CHNY/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.861/Chny/2024 Jains Green Acres Flat Owners Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Association, No. 91, Jains Green Acres, Tax (Exemption), Aayakar Bhavan, - Dargha Road, Zamin Pallavaram, Annexe Building, No. 121, Mahatma Chennai 600 043. Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabtj1803F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemption), Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 12Section 12(1)(ac)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

however, having found that there is no charitable activities undertaken for general public, rejected the said application filed in Form No. 10AB under section 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act. 6. On perusal of the order of SMC of Delhi ITAT in the case of Swarn Jayanti Rail Nagar ... hand. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(E) in rejecting the application Form No. 10AB filed under section 12(1)(ac)(iii) of the Act seeking registration under section 12AB of the Act. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed