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. 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

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

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

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

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) of Section 12A. The Circular refers to various representations received on the subject while processing the income tax returns for the assessment year 2018-19 in respect of belated income tax returns

COMM OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION , KOLKATA vs. FUTURE EDUCATION & RESEARCH TRUST "NIMPHOOL"

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

Charitable Institutions, reported in 363 ITR 230 (Kar.) and the decision in the case of DIT(E) Vs. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust, reported in (2001) 249 ITR 533 (Bom) and held that in the event of violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the amount of benefit applied to the specified persons will

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. RUNGTA MINES 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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA vs. M/S THE CALCUTTA TRAMWAYS COMPANY (1978) 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