← All Phrases

“Section 2(15)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(15)1,405 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(15) is 279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141), cited in 706 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(15)

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

ACIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority
143 Taxmann.com 278 · 2022 · Supreme Court
390
citing judgments

If activities for the advancement of general public utility are carried on as a business, income from such activities is not exempt under Section 11, even if the profits are utilized for the main charitable object. The argument that profits from general public utility activities can be ploughed back to charity to maintain exemption is not a good law.

Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association
121 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
328
citing judgments

A charitable institution, whose predominant object is general public utility, can engage in non-charitable activities yielding incidental profits, provided these profits are deployed to achieve the dominant charitable object. A subsidiary object, if ancillary to the primary charitable purpose, does not negate the institution's charitable character.

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.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. Andhra Chamber of Commerce
55 ITR 722 · 1965 · Supreme Court
167
citing judgments

An organization qualifies as having a charitable purpose if its primary object is the advancement of general public utility, even if its members receive incidental benefits. The existence of incidental non-charitable objects does not negate its charitable status.

Queen’s Educational Society v. CIT
372 ITR 699 · 2015 · Supreme Court
152
citing judgments

An educational institution that generates a surplus does not automatically lose its charitable status or cease to exist solely for educational purposes. This is true if the surplus is reinvested for its educational objectives, and the predominant object test determines if the institution's primary aim is education or profit.

India Trade Promotion Organization v. DGIT(Exemption)
371 ITR 333 · 2015 · High Court
128
citing judgments

An institution engaged in the advancement of general public utility retains its charitable character and eligibility for exemptions under Section 11 or approval under Section 10(23C)(iv) provided profit is not its predominant motive, even if it generates incidental surpluses or collects fees.

Judgments citing Section 2(15)

Indian Beauty & Hygiene Association, Mumbai vs. The ITO (E)-1(3), Mumbai

ITA 689/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. Joginder Singh, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 8

Association earned from Surplus of Seminar of Rs. 8,00,000/- is treated as other income which is hit by main proviso to section 2(15) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for non-charitable purpose and sustaining the addition ... erred in considering surplus of seminar of Rs. 8,00,000/- as other income hit by main proviso to section 2(15) without considering the fact that aggregate receipt for the seminar of Rs. 10,50,000/-, do not exceed the quantified limit of 20% of total receipt

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 427/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

business Page 2 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 3 of 22 and in view of the provisions of section 2(15) r.w proviso to the said section the nature of activity being ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility are not charitable and further ... receipts of the assessee are more than the limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) and therefore, the assesse is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based on the assessment order passed

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 425/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

business Page 2 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 3 of 22 and in view of the provisions of section 2(15) r.w proviso to the said section the nature of activity being ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility are not charitable and further ... receipts of the assessee are more than the limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) and therefore, the assesse is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based on the assessment order passed

M.P.Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 423/IND/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

business Page 2 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 3 of 22 and in view of the provisions of section 2(15) r.w proviso to the said section the nature of activity being ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility are not charitable and further ... receipts of the assessee are more than the limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) and therefore, the assesse is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based on the assessment order passed

M/S M.P. Madhyam, Bhopal vs. The ACIT Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeals of assessee for A

ITA 422/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(15)Section 234D

business Page 2 of 22 ITA No.422 & other /Ind/2022 M.P. Madhyam Page 3 of 22 and in view of the provisions of section 2(15) r.w proviso to the said section the nature of activity being ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility are not charitable and further ... receipts of the assessee are more than the limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15) and therefore, the assesse is not entitled for exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The AO reopened the assessment for A.Y.2011-12 & 2013-14 based on the assessment order passed

Yadav Kalyan Samiti, Faridabad vs. CIT Exmptions Chandigarh, Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2052/DEL/2021[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Delhi30 Aug 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the objects of appellant society are charitablewithin the meaning of section 2(15) of the Act and the activities are genuine . 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax has rejected the application on vague, irrelevant

Sarswati Vidhya Pratishthan M.P, Bhupal vs. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 392/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisarswati Vidhya Pratishthan Dcit (E) M.P. Bhopal Vs. 01, Harshwardhan Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadas0899M Assessee By Shri Santosh Deshmukh & Shri Parth Jhawar, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2023

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

reproduced as under: “14. The moot question for our determination is whether the assessee is pursuing its objects as per the provisions of section 2(15) of the IT Act, i.e., relief for poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility and is entitled ... therefore in terms of the proviso introduced by the ITA No. 278/Kol/2018 M.s. Credai Bengal, AY 2012-13 Finance Act, 2008 in Section 2(15) of the Act, the said activity could not be regarded to be charitable in nature and consequently therefore the benefit of Section

Iris Knowledge Foundation, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

ITA 1947/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Chaitanya Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in denying the exemption u/s. 11 of the Act by applying the proviso to section 2(15) r.w.s 13 of the Act. 3.2. The Appellant prays that the exemption u/s. 11 claimed by the Appellant be allowed.” 2. Briefly stated facts ... section 11 of the Act is available to entities which cannot be construed to be charitable in view of the provisions contained under section 2(15) of the Act and such object as well as activities of the assessee fall under advancement of any other object of general public utility

International Copper Association India, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemp)- II (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7885/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by relying on several decisions and provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and held that Page No. | 6 ITA NOs. 7884 & 7885/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) International Copper Association India interest on surplus ... Appeal) [CIT(A)] has legally erred in denying exemption to the Appellant under Section 11 to Section 13 of the Act read with Section 2(15) of the Act. 2) On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has legally erred

International Copper Association India, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemp)- II (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7884/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer by relying on several decisions and provisions of section 2(15) of the Act and held that Page No. | 6 ITA NOs. 7884 & 7885/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) International Copper Association India interest on surplus ... Appeal) [CIT(A)] has legally erred in denying exemption to the Appellant under Section 11 to Section 13 of the Act read with Section 2(15) of the Act. 2) On the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has legally erred

Saraswati Sahitya Prachar Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 216/RPR/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.216/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sarswati Sahitya Prachar Samiti Vs Cit(Exemptions) 1, Saraswari Vihar Bhopal Rohnipuram, Behind Ayurvedik College, Raipur Chattisgarh - 492 001 Pan No. Aafas 0997J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bhopal, Dated 26.09.2019 U/S 10(23C)(Vi) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Appellant Assessee Is A Aop & Filed The Return Of Its Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 22-08-2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs 9,40,500/- The Assessee Filed An Application In Form 56D On Dated 20/10/2018. The Cit (Exemption), Bhopal Has Rejected The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 10(23C)(Vi) On 26 September. 2019. 2. The Cit (Exemption), Bhopal Issued A Notice On Dated 12/09/2019 For Attending At The Office On 20.09.2019. The Authorized Representative Of The Assessee, Shri Nandan Lai Jain C.A. Appear Before The Ito Of The Cit (Exemption), Bhopal With The Required & Necessary Documents. 3. The Ld. A.O Had Rejected The Impugned Application Without Giving Any Proper & Meaningful Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10

profit. In the instant case, it is seen that the society is conducting trading activities which is in contravention of the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which reads as under: “Charitable Purpose included relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment ... covered under advancement of any other object of general public utility can do commercial activities upto 20% of its total receipts [proviso to section 2(15). The advancement of any other object of general public utility shall not be charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity

India International Centre, Central Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2940/DEL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 India International Centre, Vs Cit(E), 40, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi. Lodhi Estate, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaati0660C

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT,DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

following grounds:- a) The scrutiny assessment for the Asst Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were completed by invoking the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act denying the benefit of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act and income computed under Chapter ... along with notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, no query was raised with regard to applicability of proviso to section 2(15) of the Act for the assessee in Asst Year 2018-19. 4. Accordingly a show cause notice was issued

Ramswaroop Das Niranjanlal Charitable Trust, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee trust being devoid and bereft of any merit is dismissed in terms of my observations above

ITA 242/RPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 242/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ramswaroop Das Niranjanlal Charitable Trust Vandana Bhawan, M.G. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaatr2301K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

which was more than threshold amount of Rs.10 lacs (as was applicable during the year under consideration) as contemplated in “2nd proviso” to Section 2(15) of the Act; therefore, its activities mentioned above were not to be held as having been carried out for charitable purposes. Accordingly ... referred to the provisions of Section 2(15) r.w.s. 13(8) of the Act, and declined the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s.11 of the Act and brought its surplus of Rs.2,20,247/- to tax. 4. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals

Maharana Pratap Khelgaonsociety, Udaipur vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

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

ITA 131/JODH/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemaharana Pratap Vs. Cit (Exemption) Khelgoan Society, Kailash Height, Lal Khelgaon Parisar, Kothi, Tonk Road, Udaipur-313001, Jaipur – 302015, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aagam0274P Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Lodha, Ca.Ar Revenue By : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption)(Cit(E)) Passed U/Sec12Ab(1)(B) Of The Act Dated 24.02.2023. Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha, CA.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Section 12ASection 2(15)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Infoparks Kerala, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

registered u/s.12AA of the Act as a charitable trust, is entitled to exemption u/s.11 thereof in view of the amended section 2(15), i.e., by Finance Act, 2010 w.r.e.f. 01.4.2009, which reads asunder: ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala v. Jt.DIT "Definitions 2. In this ... relation thereto, for any consideration. The idea of a predominant object, among several, is discarded. In it’s words: ‘16. To sum up, section 2(15) excludes from exemption the carrying on of activities for profit even if they are linked with the objectives of general public utility, because

Infoparks Kerala, Trivandrum vs. The Jt Director of It (OSD) Exem), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

registered u/s.12AA of the Act as a charitable trust, is entitled to exemption u/s.11 thereof in view of the amended section 2(15), i.e., by Finance Act, 2010 w.r.e.f. 01.4.2009, which reads asunder: ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala v. Jt.DIT "Definitions 2. In this ... relation thereto, for any consideration. The idea of a predominant object, among several, is discarded. In it’s words: ‘16. To sum up, section 2(15) excludes from exemption the carrying on of activities for profit even if they are linked with the objectives of general public utility, because

Infoparks Kerala, Trivandrum vs. The Jt Director of It (OSD) Exem), Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

registered u/s.12AA of the Act as a charitable trust, is entitled to exemption u/s.11 thereof in view of the amended section 2(15), i.e., by Finance Act, 2010 w.r.e.f. 01.4.2009, which reads asunder: ITA Nos.75-77/Coch/2015 (AYs. 2009-10 to 11-12) Infopark Kerala v. Jt.DIT "Definitions 2. In this ... relation thereto, for any consideration. The idea of a predominant object, among several, is discarded. In it’s words: ‘16. To sum up, section 2(15) excludes from exemption the carrying on of activities for profit even if they are linked with the objectives of general public utility, because

Jas Karan Amrav Devi Bothra Charitable Trust, Bikaner vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

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

ITA 320/JODH/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotejas Karan Amrav Devi Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Bothra Charitable Trust Kailash Heights,3 Rdflr, C/O. Surana & Co., Lalkothi,Tonk Road, 13/14, Industrial Area, Jaipur-302015. Rani Bazar, Bikaner. Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aabtj4574F Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur Rejecting The Registration Application U/S 12Aa(1)(B) Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi jain
Section 12A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI DR. DIPAK P

Shri Gaushala Bhawan Charitable Trust, Mansa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 81/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Shri Gaushala Bhawan Charitable Trust, Mansa vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 80/ASR/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Aug 2023AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE