“Section 2(38)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(38)4 judgments

GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 584/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Maulik Kansara, ARFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Makwana, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(38)Section 57

before CIT(Appeals) that its income was actually exempt under alternative provisions as well, namely Sections 10(25) or 10(38) read with Section 2(38) of the Act, even if exemption under Section 10(23AAA) was not allowable. The CIT(Appeals), however, found that the CPC had duly issued ... view that the CIT(Appeals) erred in not examining the alternate claim of exemption under Sections 10(25) or 10(38) read with Section 2(38) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), while upholding the procedural legality of the adjustment made under Section

RAMDULARI BANSAL WELFARE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee society is dismissed

ITA 790/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 80G

purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law". The Income-tax Act does not provide a definition for these terms. Section 2(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines 'offence' as "any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force

RAMDULARI BANSAL WELFARE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee society is dismissed

ITA 789/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(3)Section 80G

CIT vs. CHAABI ADVERTISING

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 812 / 2011HC Delhi07 Jul 2011

Section 2(38)Section 2(39)

disallowed on the ground that the present assessee was a different entity from M/s Sahara India and the Trust was recognized under Section 2(38) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee had also claimed prior period of expenditure of a sum of <29,7341- which was disallowed ... Insofar as the first deduction claimed by the Assessee is concerned, the CIT(A) observed that the provident fund contribution was recognized under Section 2(38) of the Act and there was no reason .fr 2011:DHC:14810-DB for Assessing officer to make disalf owance. lt was afso found