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.

2 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Hyderabad7Amritsar6Bangalore2Kolkata1Mumbai1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 12A8Section 269S6Section 271D5Section 271D(2)4Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2

M/S. SRI. SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 835/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA & Shri Mahesh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)

269T of the Act. 9. Consequently, as per the provisions of the second proviso to section 143(3) of the Act, the AO made a reference to the learned . Page 4 of 16 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) on March 6, 2023, recommending the withdrawal of registration granted under section 12AA/12AB of the Act. 10. Based

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 737/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

charitable trust and had received the amount of Rs.15,64,50,000 in cash from one of its trustees, viz., Sh. K Muniraju. The default, if any, was of a technical or venial nature for which the assessee was not liable to penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there