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.

110 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 201clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka455Delhi204Mumbai137Chennai110Ahmedabad49Bangalore46Kolkata42Cochin42Pune40Jaipur28Lucknow17Calcutta16Indore13Allahabad12Surat11Rajkot10Jodhpur9Cuttack9Chandigarh8Nagpur7Patna6Telangana6Rajasthan5Kerala5Hyderabad5Raipur3SC3Jabalpur2Dehradun2Guwahati2Agra2Andhra Pradesh1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 234E226Section 200A155Section 1154Section 200(3)52TDS52Charitable Trust42Section 153A35Section 206C(3)32Section 12A29

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 3115/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

Charitable Institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC). In view of the clear provisions of the Act, and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, cited supra, it is clear that in case there is violation referred to under section 13(1)(c), then tax can be charged on such income which violates

Showing 1–20 of 110 · Page 1 of 6

Addition to Income29
Exemption25
Section 143(3)24

M/S JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT, CC1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 916/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

Charitable Institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC). In view of the clear provisions of the Act, and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, cited supra, it is clear that in case there is violation referred to under section 13(1)(c), then tax can be charged on such income which violates

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 3114/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

Charitable Institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC). In view of the clear provisions of the Act, and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, cited supra, it is clear that in case there is violation referred to under section 13(1)(c), then tax can be charged on such income which violates

JAYA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRL CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 are allowed and for the assessment years

ITA 2915/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2915, 3114, 3115/Chny/2019 & 916/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(e)Section 143(3)

Charitable Institutions [2014] 51 taxmann.com 378/227 Taxman 369 (SC). In view of the clear provisions of the Act, and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case, cited supra, it is clear that in case there is violation referred to under section 13(1)(c), then tax can be charged on such income which violates

NEURO UPDATE CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1480/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Sitharaman, CA &For Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 250

section 10(22) of the Act.” (c) In the case of Commissioner of income Tax Vs. Sorabji Nusserwanji Paarekh 201 ITR 939 the Gujarat High Court opined that Assessee should be an institution primarily engaged in educational activities and not one assisting educational institutions. The trust was formed with the object of imparting technical education to the boys belonging

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 407/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

section. However, ld. JCIT was not impressed by any of the above 5. arguments taken by the assessee. According to him, Explanation to Sec. 2(31) of the Act, introduced by Finance Act, 2002, was only to bring within the ambit of taxation, religious and/ or charitable trusts ITA Nos.406 & 407/Mds/2017 :- 5 -: which lost exemption

SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both

ITA 406/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 406 & 407/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015. Shriram Ownership Trust, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.4, Shriram House, I Floor, Income Tax, Burkit Road, T. Nagar, Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aagts 2243H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shaji P. Jacob, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 144ASection 14ASection 160(1)Section 161(1)Section 2(31)Section 56Section 56(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

section. However, ld. JCIT was not impressed by any of the above 5. arguments taken by the assessee. According to him, Explanation to Sec. 2(31) of the Act, introduced by Finance Act, 2002, was only to bring within the ambit of taxation, religious and/ or charitable trusts ITA Nos.406 & 407/Mds/2017 :- 5 -: which lost exemption

ALAMELU MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,THIRUVALLUR vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS,, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 814/CHNY/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.814/Chny/2025 Alamelu Memorial Charitable Trust, Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax No. 46, 2Nd Street, Sp Munusamy [Exemptions], Nagar, Gnt Road, Thervazhi, Chennai. Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur 601 201. [Pan:Aaita6393E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Vishva Padmanabhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Nandha Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai In Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab Under Clause (Iii) Of First Proviso To Section 80G(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri K. Vishva Padmanabhan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Nandha Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 12ASection 4Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(iii)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Charitable Trust, Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax No. 46, 2nd Street, SP Munusamy [Exemptions], Nagar, GNT Road, Thervazhi, Chennai. Gummidipoondi, Thiruvallur 601 201. [PAN:AAITA6393E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri K. Vishva Padmanabhan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Nandha Kumar, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , CHENNAI vs. THE ICICI FOUNDATION FOR INCLUSIVE GROWTH , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2386/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Before Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathashri S.R. Raghunathashri S.R. Raghunathashri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं././././Ita No.2 अपील

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sriram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 80G

201 The DCIT (Exemptions), The ICICI Foundation for Inclusive Growth, ICICI Bank, B-Wing, 3rd Floor, Chennai V. V. V. V. Mafatlal Chembers, Nr. Bawia Ma, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 013. [PAN: AABTT4987G] [PAN: AABTT4987G] [PAN: AABTT4987G] [PAN: AABTT4987G] (अपीलाथk अपीलाथk अपीलाथk/Appellant) अपीलाथk /Appellant) /Appellant) /Appellant) (lmथk lmथk lmथk/Respondent) lmथk /Respondent) /Respondent) /Respondent) Department by : Ms. E.Pavuna Sundari

SIVA SAKTHI SATHYA SAI CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD 4, CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2944/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2944/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Siva Sakthi Sathya Sai Charitable Income Tax Officer, Trust, Vs. Exemptions Ward 4, 3/16, Ponniamman Koil Street, Chennai. Alapakkam, Chennai – 600 116. [Pan: Aadts-5679-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.D. Vijay Kumar, J.C.I.T
Section 11Section 139

201 (c) V Ramakrishna Charitable Trust Vs. DDIT, ITA No.92/Mds/2015 (d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Moti Ram Gopi Chand Charitable Trust, 8. Further, the assessee furnished the details of fixed deposits made by the assessee corresponding to the accumulated amount as shown in the revised Form-10 filed subsequently. Further, the assessee stated that since the original return

MAC CHARITIES,CHENNAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2950/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2950/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mac Charities, The Income Tax Officer, Mac Ich Building, Vhs Campus, Vs. Dlc-Ca-(201)(1), Ttti Post, Tharamani, Chennai. Chennai – 600 113. [Pan: Aaatm 0483F]

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 1lSection 2(15)

201)(1), TTTI Post, Tharamani, Chennai. Chennai – 600 113. [PAN: AAATM 0483F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate GHथ" की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal

SAHAYOG,CHENNAI vs. CIT, COIMBATORE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 10/CHNY/2015[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Moharana, CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

201. PAN : AAOTS 0431 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri V. Jagadisan, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. S. Moharana, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21.04.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.05.2015 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals

SAHAYOG,CHENNAI vs. CIT, COIMBATORE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 11/CHNY/2015[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2015

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Jagadisan, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Moharana, CIT
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

201. PAN : AAOTS 0431 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri V. Jagadisan, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. S. Moharana, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21.04.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 01.05.2015 आदेश /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Both the appeals

RCGIC CHARITABLE TRUST ,GUMMIDIPOONDI vs. CIT, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed on the following terms:-

ITA 994/CHNY/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar - (CIT)-Ld.DR
Section 10Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(i)Section 80G(5)(iv)

Charitable Trust Gummidipoondi, CIT (Exemption), बनाम/ Old No.25, New No.7, VV Koil Street, Chennai. Vs. Choolai, Chennai – 601 201 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AADTR-5536-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) & Shri K. Vishva Padmanabhan (CA) – Ld. ARs ""थ" की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh

SREE RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 1, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 834/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 201Section 40

201 ( 1) and in accordance to the first proviso of the aforesaid section. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that as per the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) the appellant is deemed to have deducted and paid the tax on such sum and therefore disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted

SREE RAGHAVENDRA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,CHENNAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 835/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 834 & 835/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri. G. Suresh, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 201Section 40

201 ( 1) and in accordance to the first proviso of the aforesaid section. The learned Commissioner ought to have seen that as per the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) the appellant is deemed to have deducted and paid the tax on such sum and therefore disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is not warranted

THE CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD ,TRICHY vs. CIT , CPC , TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 807/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.807/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Congregation Of The Sisters Of The The Acit, Cpc बनाम/ Cross Of Chavanod, Tds, Ghaziabad Holy Cross Provincilate, Puthur, Vs. Tiruchirappalli-620 017. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan: Aaatt-4867-G / (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) : (*+थ) / Respondent) अपीलाथ)कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None *+थ)कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have made submissions

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 407/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have made submissions

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 406/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have made submissions

D. SENTHAMARAISELVI,DINDIGUL vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 405/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

Charitable Trust. The relevant observations of Hon’ble Karnataka, for ease of reference, could be extracted in the following manner: - 6. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kumar and Mr.A.Shankar, appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel appearing for Income Tax Department. 7. We may at the outset record that, learned counsel appearing for both sides have made submissions