COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA vs. KISHORE KANTI KHANDELWAL CHARITY TRUST

The appeals are dismissed and substantial questions

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

charitable trust donates its 9 income to another trust, the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA vs. ASHOK KUMAR MEMORIAL TRUST

The appeals are dismissed and substantial questions

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

charitable trust donates its 9 income to another trust, the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS ) KOLKATA vs. HARSH VARDHAN CHARITY TRUST

The appeals are dismissed and substantial questions

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

charitable trust donates its 9 income to another trust, the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) KOLKATA vs. NAWAL KISHORE KEJRIWALCHARITY TRUST

The appeals are dismissed and substantial questions

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

charitable trust donates its 9 income to another trust, the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS ) KOLKATA vs. ALWAR CHARITY TRUST

The appeals are dismissed and substantial questions

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

charitable trust donates its 9 income to another trust, the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA vs. AKLING CHARITY TRUST

The appeals are dismissed and substantial questions

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

charitable trust donates its 9 income to another trust, the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have

M/S. OUTOTEC (CANADA) LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-2(1)

The appeals are dismissed and substantial questions

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ

charitable trust donates its 9 income to another trust, the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) can be said to have

CIT (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA vs. M/S GOBIND RAM GOEL CHARITABLE TRUST

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Trust was registered under Section 12AA of the Act, 1961 vide order 2 dated 05.05.2008 and was granted exemption under Section 80G vide proceedings dated 05.07.2013. 3. The assessee has been filing regularly its return of income within due date under Section 139(1) of the Act, 1961 claiming exemptions under Section 11 of the Act, 1961. A survey

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , ASANSOL vs. KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

Bench: :

charitable or religious trust – registration of – clarification with regard to time allowed for filing of return of income subsequent to insertion of Clause (ba) in Sub-section (1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA vs. SETH JAGANNATH BAJORIA CHARITABLE TRUST

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: January 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Debashis Chowdhury, Adv. … For The Appellant/Revenue Mr. Akhilesh Gupta, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th March, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 19/Kol/2016 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law Raised For Our Consideration;

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal erred in law in allowing registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act in the absence of dissolution clause and the original copy of the Trust Deed since the absence of such clause in the Trust Deed takes away the charitable

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHANTI KUMAR SURANA

Bench: HON'BLE T.S. SIVAGNANAM, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 and proceed to decide the issues. The petitioners as trustees are allowed to enter into a development agreement with Satya Krishna Enterprise only if the trustees make the following provision for the duties:- 1

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXASMPTION) vs. VIJAY KUMAR BAJORIA FOUNDATION

In the result the tax case appeal is dismissed and the substantial

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 22, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For Appellant The Court :- This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) Dated 19Th April, 2017 In Ita 2293 & 2294/Kol/2016. The Appeal Was Admitted On 1St April, 2019 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law : A) Whether The Impugned Order Of The Tribunal Dated 19Th April, 2017 Is Perverse In Failing To Appreciate & Record A Finding That The Trust In Question Was Not Involved In Any Charitable Activities & That Its Registration Was Liable To Be Cancelled Under Section 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ?

1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/39/2019 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA Versus VIJAY KUMAR BAJORIA FOUNDATION BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Dated : NOVEMBER 22, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …for appellant The Court :- This appeal has been filed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S. CENTURY ENKA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S V2 RETAIL LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. JAGANNATH BANWARILAL TEXOFABS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. J.J.EXPORTERS LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. L D S CITY PROJECTS PVT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, KOLKATA vs. M/S. TCG LIFESCIENCES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice