BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

130 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 10(35)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi497Karnataka472Mumbai460Bangalore264Chennai229Jaipur134Ahmedabad130Chandigarh88Pune86Hyderabad79Kolkata75Lucknow54Cochin41Indore27Rajkot22Cuttack21Amritsar21Visakhapatnam17Agra17Calcutta16Nagpur15Allahabad14Surat14Telangana10Jodhpur9Raipur8SC7Varanasi6Kerala5Patna5Dehradun4Rajasthan3Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 12A122Section 1197Section 2(15)86Exemption77Section 143(3)58Section 80G(5)52Section 80G43Addition to Income36Deduction33

THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. GUJARAT ENERGY RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (GERMI),, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1720/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: ShriO. P. Sharma, CITDRFor Respondent: ShriS. N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 25

10 years subject to the trust following the procedure laid down by the Act. If that is so, merely because, the donor trust gifted the concerned income to the donee trust which also was a religious and charitable trust, it cannot be said that the donor trust had acted contrary to the provisions of section 11(1)(a) as tried

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

Disallowance30
Section 35A28
Charitable Trust28

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is to mitigate the genuine hardship of assessee in certain circumstances and authorization to the Commissioners to admit the belated Form 10. In the said order dated 26.12.2019, the Commissioner Income Tax condoned the delay in filing Form 10 (which was electronically filed on 05.03.2019) for AY 2017-18. Similarly

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE KHODAL DHAM TRUST, KAGWAD, RAJKOT

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

ITA 904/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.904/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T.(Exemptions) Shree Khodal Dham Trust, Circle-2, Vs. Kagwad, Ahmedabad. Alka Society, 4Th Floor, Shri Sardar Patel Bhavan, Near Water Tank, Rajkot-360004. Pan: Aajts1017J

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT.D.R
Section 11Section 12A

35,03,780 and none of the expenditure is related to have been incurred for religious purpose. Even while passing the Assessment Order AO has allowed such expenditure from gross total income which supports the contention of Appellant that it has incurred substantial expenditure towards the object of the Trust. While making the above observation that Appellant has not carried

CLEAN TEETH CLEAN MOUTH CHARITABLE TRUST,RAJKOT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/AHD/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Darshak M Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

35 of the Act, till 30.06.2024; (ii) Form No. 10AB, in case of an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section ( I) of section 12A or under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 805/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

10 7001-10000 2,84,72,399 3,261 0.91% 99.53% 11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 806/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

10 7001-10000 2,84,72,399 3,261 0.91% 99.53% 11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years

THE ACIT, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2344/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

10 7001-10000 2,84,72,399 3,261 0.91% 99.53% 11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years

DCIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGLORE vs. VYAKTI VIKAS KENDRA INDIA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 265/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri N. R. Soni, CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate
Section 11Section 129Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 244A

10 7001-10000 2,84,72,399 3,261 0.91% 99.53% 11 10001-25000 1,64,93,278 1,079 0.30% 99.84% 12 25001 and 8,88,07,958 588 0.16% 100.00% above Grand Total 68,35,63,534 3,57,376 100.00% ITA Nos.265, 805, 806 & 2344/Ahd/2018 DCIT vs. VyaktiVikas Kendra India Assessment Years

CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1071/AHD/2013[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR &
Section 12ASection 2(15)

35,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- The details of income earned by the assessee are as under: FY 2009-10 Rs. 2,22,94,074/- FY 2008-09 Rs. 1,88,26,808/- FY 2007-08 Rs. 38,12,635/- The AO also noticed that the assessee collected the fees from all students amounting to Rs. 5,06,55,100/- only

ITO(EXEMPTIONS),, AHMEDABAD vs. CHAMUNDA FOUNDATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO No.83/Ahd/2015 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 829/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl.

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR &
Section 12ASection 2(15)

35,000/- Rs.2,25,000/- The details of income earned by the assessee are as under: FY 2009-10 Rs. 2,22,94,074/- FY 2008-09 Rs. 1,88,26,808/- FY 2007-08 Rs. 38,12,635/- The AO also noticed that the assessee collected the fees from all students amounting to Rs. 5,06,55,100/- only

NANA AND RANDER SUNNI VOHRA MEDICAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (EXEMPTION ) AHMEDABAD, AHMRDABAD

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

ITA 1000/AHD/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms.Himali Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

35 of the Act, till 30.06.2024; (ii) Form No. 10AB, in case of an application under clause (iii) of the first proviso to clause (23C) of section 10 or under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section ( I) of section 12A or under clause (iii) of the first proviso to sub-section (5) of section

ANNAPURNA CHARITABLE TRUST,BANASKANTHA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2214/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025

Bench: Us Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 12ASection 800(5)Section 80G(5)Section 80G(58)

35 held that the provisions of Section 13 of the Act would be attracted only at the time of assessment since the quantum of expenses made for religious and common purposes can be determined from Profit and Loss accounts only and not at the time of granting registration u/s. 12A of the Act following Jurisdictional High Court decision

GROW FOUNDATION GANDHINAGAR,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 9

ITA 734/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri H Phani, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri H Phani, CIT. DR
Section 10Section 80Section 80FSection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)

Charitable Trust vs. ITO 160 taxmann.com 475 (Chennai – Tribunal), while passing the order the Tribunal held that the Timeline prescribed under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5) should be treated as directory and not mandatory, hence, once timeline prescribed for filing Form N0.10A for recognition under section 12A had been extended up to 30.09.2023, same

GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD (GHB),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE D.C.I.T. (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3297/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Him) Of Denying Exemption To The Appellant’S Income U/S.11 & 12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed In The Appellant’S Return, On The Ground That The Appellant’S Case Attracted The First Proviso To Section 2(15) & In Turn, Sub-Section(8) Of Section 13 Of The Act.

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

35 SOT 15 (Asr)], Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority Vs. CIT [(2006) 156 Taxman 37 (Mag)], Jammu Development Authority Vs. CIT [(2012) 23 taxmann.com 343 (Asr)] and Entertainment Society of Goa vs. CIT [(2013) 34 taxmann.com 210 (Panjim)]. He was thus of the view as follows:- “6. Thus, the submission of the assessee that, the assessee is carrying

SHREE SANAND JAMALIYA PATIDAR PANCH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1884/AHD/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 12A

35 (Guj.) (ii) Shree Dandhavya Chhasath Prajapati Samaj Vs. CIT(E) [2024] 167 taxmann.com 610 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) (iii) ‘A’ Shree Naminath Shwetamber Murtipujak Tapagachh Jain Religiouns Trust Vs. CIT(E) [2024] 167 taxmann.com 547 (Ahmedabad- Trib.) (iv) Shah Gulabchandmulchand Shree Parshwanath Trust Vapi Vs. CIT(E) [2024] 165 taxmann.com 731 (Surat-Trib.) (v) Islamic Academy of Education Vs. PCIT (Central