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.

15 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi527Mumbai523Karnataka472Bangalore276Chennai254Ahmedabad141Jaipur137Kolkata80Hyderabad79Chandigarh77Pune71Lucknow47Cochin44Indore27Rajkot21Amritsar20Visakhapatnam18Cuttack18Surat17Calcutta17Agra16Allahabad15Nagpur14Telangana10Jodhpur9Raipur8Varanasi7SC7Dehradun5Kerala5Patna5Rajasthan3Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Guwahati1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 14820Section 14720Section 1116Section 143(3)13Section 2(15)9Section 1544Section 12A4Exemption4Addition to Income4

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf of State

Section 143(1)3

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf of State

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

section 20(2) of the 1973 Act, mandate that the funds of the authority are to be applied towards meeting the expenses of the authority in the administration of that Act and for no other purpose. iv. The contention of the Revenue that the assessee was a commercial enterprise which had undertaken various civil construction work on behalf of State

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)

35-A, Tashkhand Marg, Allahabad. Civil Lines, Allahabad. PAN:AABTB2337E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. D.R. O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA:J.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.182/Alld/2024 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-16 against impugned appellate order dated 30/11/2022 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047733485

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)

charitable in nature and the activities are being carried out as per rules and bylaws of the trust hence the action of the assessing officer and learned CIT (Appeal) is bad in law. 6. That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves her right to take any fresh ground before hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 52/ALLD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6/ALLD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 7/ALLD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 54/ALLD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 50/ALLD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 9/ALLD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 8/ALLD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

YOGI SATYAM,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5/ALLD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 53/ALLD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE

SANJANA,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 51/ALLD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Dr. Pawan Jaiswal and Shri AjitFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

35,960/-. 11.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which restricted disallowance on account of expenses to 2.5%, i.e., Rs.16,000/- as against 5%, i.e., Rs.32,000/- disallowed by the AO. 11.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. BECAUSE