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.

10 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,161Delhi842Pune502Bangalore417Ahmedabad396Kolkata298Chennai288Jaipur257Hyderabad148Surat145Lucknow113Rajkot103Amritsar94Indore91Chandigarh87Visakhapatnam77Cochin75Karnataka58Cuttack55Nagpur54Raipur33Jodhpur31Agra30Patna25Ranchi17Panaji17Telangana14Guwahati14Calcutta13Varanasi12Allahabad10Dehradun9Jabalpur9SC7Punjab & Haryana7Rajasthan5Kerala4Himachal Pradesh2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A21Section 1120Section 26318Section 15412Section 2(15)9Exemption7Section 80G(5)6Section 80G6Section 143(1)4Addition to Income

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

trust, but not to examine the application of income. He pointed out that in the case under consideration, the assessee’s only evidence in support of its submission of being a charitable organization, was the order under section 12A

4
Condonation of Delay3
Rectification u/s 1542

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

trust, but not to examine the application of income. He pointed out that in the case under consideration, the assessee’s only evidence in support of its submission of being a charitable organization, was the order under section 12A

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

trust, but not to examine the application of income. He pointed out that in the case under consideration, the assessee’s only evidence in support of its submission of being a charitable organization, was the order under section 12A

UMRAO SINGH SMARAK SAMITI,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 38/ALLD/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Allahabad23 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhari, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

12A of the Act benefit of section 11 to 13 should have been allowed which was not done hence the order of rejection of rectification passed vide order under u/s 154 dated 10/08/20 is not correct. 4. That in any view of the matter benefit of section 11 to 13 has been allowed by CP, Bengaluru in earlier

UNIQUE BOOND FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 75/ALLD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)

section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act on 28/06/2023. The assessee trust filed application for registration of the trust u/s 12AB of the Act and also moved an application for registration of the trust u/s 80G(5) of the Act on 28/06/2024. Since the assessee trust was granted provisional registration, Form 10AB was to be filed at least

UNIQUE BOOND FOUNDATION,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/ALLD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad17 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 253(3)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)

section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) of the Act on 28/06/2023. The assessee trust filed application for registration of the trust u/s 12AB of the Act and also moved an application for registration of the trust u/s 80G(5) of the Act on 28/06/2024. Since the assessee trust was granted provisional registration, Form 10AB was to be filed at least

BHARTIYA SHIKSHA SAMMITTEE KASHI PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/ACIT-2(CPC) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 182/ALLD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad16 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 253(3)

12A(2) of I. T. Act, the income has to be computed under section 11 of I. T. Act as Order u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act dated 28.02.2018 for A. Y. 2015-16 is passed much after the Registration u/s 12AA of I.T. Act dated 05.09.2017. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 3. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred On facts

ACHARYA DHARAMCHANDRADEO MEDICAL & RESEARCH TRUST,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT(CPC), , BANGALORE

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Acharya Dharamchandradeo Dcit (Cpc), Medical & Research Trust, V. Bangalore-560500 Maharishi Sadafal Deo Ashram , Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad-211019,U.P. Pan:Aacta3794K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None (Application) Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2023 & 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.09.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Application)For Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 253(6)(c)

12A and 80G of the Act which is not in dispute, return along with audit report was filed in time, merely because due to technical reason form 10B was uploaded beyond time therefore benefit of section 11 was denied by DCIT CPC Banglore which action is highly unjustified. 5. That in the any view of the matter both

M/S. RITHWIK RK JOINT VENTURE,HYDERABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 107/ALLD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 263

charitable activities carried out by your trust/society during the period under consideration. 9. From this questionnaire, it is clear that all the queries raised by the Assessing Officer are totally irrelevant and not relating to the assessee or the assessment of the assessee. Thus, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer has issued this questionnaire without application of mind

M/S RITHWIK RK JOINT VENTURE vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 263

charitable activities carried out by your trust/society during the period under consideration. 9. From this questionnaire, it is clear that all the queries raised by the Assessing Officer are totally irrelevant and not relating to the assessee or the assessment of the assessee. Thus, it is apparent that the Assessing Officer has issued this questionnaire without application of mind