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.

82 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 35(2)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka467Delhi335Mumbai270Bangalore204Chennai105Jaipur94Ahmedabad82Hyderabad73Chandigarh65Pune61Kolkata54Lucknow45Cochin35Indore19Cuttack19Calcutta17Visakhapatnam14Rajkot13Agra12Telangana7Raipur6Varanasi6Nagpur6Amritsar6Kerala5Dehradun4SC4Surat4Jodhpur4Allahabad3Patna3Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 1174Section 2(15)70Section 12A61Exemption61Section 143(3)45Section 80G(5)43Deduction33Addition to Income28Disallowance27

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

Showing 1–20 of 82 · Page 1 of 5

Section 80G21
Depreciation18
Section 14A17

iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section 13, the provision of section

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

iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section 13, the provision 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

iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section 13, the provision of section

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

iv) preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic invents, (v) preservation of environment (including water soil forest and wild life). Ultimately, the Learned AO observed that as soon as the assessee’s case is hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) by virtue of sub Section 8 of section 13, the provision of section

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

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

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

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

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

IV v. Xavier Kelavani Mandal (P.) Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 184 (Gujarat) The issue in the captioned case is related to delay in filling of Form no. 10B audit report, provision of which and requirement under such provision is different than that of Form no. 10 and hence is not applicable to the present case. 4. JCIT

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 2957/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 11Section 2(15)

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 2840/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 11Section 2(15)

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 2841/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2014-15
Section 11Section 2(15)

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 336/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2009-10
Section 11Section 2(15)

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-5., BARODA

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 337/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
Section 11Section 2(15)

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

M/S. GUJARAT CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 3303/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 11Section 2(15)

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like

SAURASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,RAJKOT vs. THE DY. CIT (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 2841/Ahd/17, i

ITA 2839/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 11Section 2(15)

iv) Cantonment Board as defined in section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)". 6.7 By means of introducing an exhaustive definition of local authority, which was hitherto not there, the Parliament denied exemption to any other Authority beyond those mentioned in Explanation. 6.8 By these amendments the law makers categorically derecognized the principle that associations like