← All Phrases

“Section 38(2)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 38Section 38(2)(c)16 judgments

Judgments citing Section 38(2)(c)

Unit Improvement Trust, Bharatpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 950/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR
Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Unit Improvement Trust, Bharatpur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 949/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR
Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 813/JPR/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 812/JPR/2024[AY 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Urban Improvement Trust (Now Kota Development Authority), Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 811/JPR/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 803/JPR/2024[AY 2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 797/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 796/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 795/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

DCIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 794/JPR/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Respondent: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 774/JPR/2024[AY 2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c)\ menjelaskan the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 773/JPR/2024[AY 2003-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Circle, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable

ITA 731/JPR/2024[AY 2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c)\ memulai emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall

ACIT, Exemptions, Circle, Jaipur vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Kota

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 717/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (E)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and Cross objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (E)-2(1) Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Girni Kamgar Kareeda Bhavan, Elphinston Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaaam3255A ..... Respondent

For Respondent: Shri Vipul Joshi & Shri Ashok Patil, Ld.AR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 20Section 250Section 4

state and Central Government on the other Take, for instance, the case of suppression of the corporation authorized by section 38. Section 38(2)(c) emphatically brings out the fact that the property really vests in the corporation, because it provides that during the period of suppression, it shall vest