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 58clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka462Delhi456Mumbai271Bangalore159Chennai156Jaipur79Ahmedabad68Kolkata58Chandigarh51Hyderabad51Pune44Cochin37Lucknow34Cuttack17Indore16Calcutta16Visakhapatnam15Allahabad15Telangana10Agra8Rajkot8Nagpur7Amritsar6Surat6SC6Varanasi4Raipur3Rajasthan2Punjab & Haryana2Jodhpur2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Patna1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14820Section 14720Section 26318Section 143(3)13Section 119Section 2(15)9Section 123Section 260A3Exemption3

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

charitable purposes’ and seek registration under section 12A(1) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that ever since assessment year 2003-04, the assessee authority had been enjoying exemption from income tax by virtue of its being acting as a local authority under section 10(20) of the Act. It had been filed returns after claiming exemption under section

Addition to Income3
TDS2
Revision u/s 2632

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

charitable purposes’ and seek registration under section 12A(1) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that ever since assessment year 2003-04, the assessee authority had been enjoying exemption from income tax by virtue of its being acting as a local authority under section 10(20) of the Act. It had been filed returns after claiming exemption under section

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

charitable purposes’ and seek registration under section 12A(1) of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that ever since assessment year 2003-04, the assessee authority had been enjoying exemption from income tax by virtue of its being acting as a local authority under section 10(20) of the Act. It had been filed returns after claiming exemption under section

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

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant

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

58 of 79 7.5%, i.e., Rs.37,500/- as against 15%, i.e., Rs.75,000/- disallowed by the AO. 12.2 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 the CIT(A) has grievously erred in law in not deciding the grounds raised by the appellant