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 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka426Delhi162Mumbai94Chennai85Hyderabad40Bangalore39Ahmedabad31Cochin18Calcutta16Chandigarh15Jaipur14Pune13Kolkata10Lucknow10Agra8Surat8Amritsar5Indore4SC4Kerala3Allahabad2Cuttack2Rajasthan2Rajkot2Telangana2Varanasi2Jabalpur1Dehradun1Nagpur1Patna1Andhra Pradesh1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 13(3)24Section 12A16Exemption14Section 1113Addition to Income4Section 13(1)(c)3Section 903Natural Justice3Section 11(2)

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT-CENTRAL,GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 96/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

Charitable Trust Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Centra), Lucknow [2018] 93 taxmann.com 483(All.) • Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions(I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.19 The Ld. Pr. CIT(Central),Gurugram was of the view that he shall exercise all the powers and perform all the functions as stipulated

CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL)-GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 97/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh
2
Section 11(1)2
Section 139(1)2
27 Aug 2021
AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

Charitable Trust Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Centra), Lucknow [2018] 93 taxmann.com 483(All.) • Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions(I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.19 The Ld. Pr. CIT(Central),Gurugram was of the view that he shall exercise all the powers and perform all the functions as stipulated

SHRI GURU RAM DASS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,MOHALI vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL) GURGAON, AT CHANDIGARH

ITA 98/CHANDI/2021[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

Charitable Trust Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Centra), Lucknow [2018] 93 taxmann.com 483(All.) • Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune Vs. Sungard Solutions(I) (P.) Ltd. [2019] 105 taxmann.com 67 (Bom) 5.19 The Ld. Pr. CIT(Central),Gurugram was of the view that he shall exercise all the powers and perform all the functions as stipulated

SIR AUROBINDO SOCIO ECONOMIC & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 1348/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)

charitable in character and as long as the purpose or purposes mentioned in Form 10 are for achieving the objects of the trust, merely because of non-furnishing of the details, as how the said amount is proposed to be spent in future, the assessee cannot be denied the exemption as is admissible under sub-section 2 of Section

DCIT, C-1 (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SHRI AUROBINDO SOCIO ECONOMIC & MANAGEMENT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LUDHINA

In the result, whereas the assessee's appeal in ITA

ITA 1375/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)

charitable in character and as long as the purpose or purposes mentioned in Form 10 are for achieving the objects of the trust, merely because of non-furnishing of the details, as how the said amount is proposed to be spent in future, the assessee cannot be denied the exemption as is admissible under sub-section 2 of Section

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 136/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

Charitable v. Union of India T20101 327 ITR 73 P&H-HC and St. Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 320 6. The above said view has further been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Managing Committee, Arya High School, in which, it has been

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 29/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

Charitable v. Union of India T20101 327 ITR 73 P&H-HC and St. Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 320 6. The above said view has further been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Managing Committee, Arya High School, in which, it has been

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

Charitable v. Union of India T20101 327 ITR 73 P&H-HC and St. Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 320 6. The above said view has further been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Managing Committee, Arya High School, in which, it has been

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 30/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

Charitable v. Union of India T20101 327 ITR 73 P&H-HC and St. Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 320 6. The above said view has further been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Managing Committee, Arya High School, in which, it has been

DCIT,CIRCLE-1(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SCHOOL( MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

Charitable v. Union of India T20101 327 ITR 73 P&H-HC and St. Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 320 6. The above said view has further been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Managing Committee, Arya High School, in which, it has been

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

Charitable v. Union of India T20101 327 ITR 73 P&H-HC and St. Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 320 6. The above said view has further been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Managing Committee, Arya High School, in which, it has been

DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 28/CHANDI/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

Charitable v. Union of India T20101 327 ITR 73 P&H-HC and St. Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 320 6. The above said view has further been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Managing Committee, Arya High School, in which, it has been

M/S MANAV MANGAL SOCIETY,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1, (E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 2/CHANDI/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR
Section 13(3)

Charitable v. Union of India T20101 327 ITR 73 P&H-HC and St. Lawrence Educational Society (Regd.) Vs. CIT (2013) 353 ITR 320 6. The above said view has further been approved by the Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) Vs. Managing Committee, Arya High School, in which, it has been

INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FUND ,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 285/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Infrastructure Development Fund, Vs. The Acit बनाम Ayojna Bhawan, Exemptions, Town & Country Planning Department, Chandigarh Haryana, Plot No.3, Madhya Marg, Sector 18, Chandigarh 160018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 250

Trust or Commission (by whatever name called) will require similar consideration - i.e., whether it is at cost with a nominal mark-up or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the mischief of "commercial activity". However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have

PUKHRAJ SINGH GUJRAL,CHANDIGARH vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Final Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Monga, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Dr Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Charitable Trust [2024] 158 taxmann.com 114/205 ITD 150 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)(Ahmedabad), where in the matter of filing of Form 10/10B which is required to be furnished before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act, the tribunal held the same to be merely directory in nature and opined that the same cannot be so fatal so as to deny exemption