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

4 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, is perverse in law considering the explanatory notes of Finance Act, 2010 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Radhamohan Roy, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddhartha Das, learned

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

4 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, is perverse in law considering the explanatory notes of Finance Act, 2010 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Radhamohan Roy, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddhartha Das, learned

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

4 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, is perverse in law considering the explanatory notes of Finance Act, 2010 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Radhamohan Roy, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddhartha Das, learned

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

4 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, is perverse in law considering the explanatory notes of Finance Act, 2010 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Radhamohan Roy, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddhartha Das, learned

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

4 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, is perverse in law considering the explanatory notes of Finance Act, 2010 ? We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Radhamohan Roy, learned advocate for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddhartha Das, learned

CIT (EXEMPTION) , KOLKATA vs. HARNARAYAN RAJDULARI DEVI TAPARIA - CHARITABALE TRUST

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the issue before us is as to whether it is essential for a trust to commence charitable activity before it can be considered eligible for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act We note that the objects of the assessee trust

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 KOLKATA vs. M/S. BRITANIA INDUSTRIES LTD

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

4. We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We note that the issue before us is as to whether it is essential for a trust to commence charitable activity before it can be considered eligible for registration u/s. 12AA of the Act We note that the objects of the assessee trust

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA vs. MAYAPUR DHAM PILGRIM AND VISITORS TRUST

The appeal stands dismissed

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

4 are a public charitable trust engaged in providing accommodation facilities to the visitors and pilgrims at Sreedham Mayapur that they had sent a letter to the organisation on 5th December, 2012 seeking their help and support for expansion of the accommodation facilities at Sreedham Mayapur and they received donation of Rs.18,00,000/- on 22nd December

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

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

4 circumstances. We also find that there is no dispute with regard to amount of Rs.1.10 crores which was financed by the trust has come back to the trust. Therefore, the amount of profit to the extent of Rs.11.93 lacs has to be subject to tax in the relevant year in which the profit was derived. As such, the assessee

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made