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.

6 results for “charitable trust”+ Search & Seizureclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi223Mumbai116Karnataka99Bangalore93Hyderabad83Chennai74Jaipur35Pune22Chandigarh17Kolkata17Lucknow16Allahabad16Indore12Patna9Amritsar9Ahmedabad7Dehradun6Cochin6Agra5Telangana5Jodhpur2Nagpur2Raipur2SC2Rajkot1Visakhapatnam1Punjab & Haryana1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 12A16Section 118Section 1325Charitable Trust5Search & Seizure5Section 134Exemption4Section 44A2Addition to Income2

LAST HOUR MINISTRY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 12/COCH/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, &For Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132

charitable in nature and benefit that trustees were getting could not be a sole reason to cancel registration of trust, cancellation of registration of assessee to be quashed. ➤ Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench A in the case of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 1, Mumbai in [2019] 108 taxmann.com 272 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein

LOVE INDIA MINISTRIES,THIRUVALLA vs. THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 13/COCH/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, &For Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132

charitable in nature and benefit that trustees were getting could not be a sole reason to cancel registration of trust, cancellation of registration of assessee to be quashed. ➤ Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench A in the case of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 1, Mumbai in [2019] 108 taxmann.com 272 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein

AYANA CHARITABLE TRUST,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 14/COCH/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, &For Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132

charitable in nature and benefit that trustees were getting could not be a sole reason to cancel registration of trust, cancellation of registration of assessee to be quashed. ➤ Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench A in the case of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 1, Mumbai in [2019] 108 taxmann.com 272 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein

M/S.BELIEVERS EASTERN CHURCH,THIRUVALLA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

ITA 15/COCH/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, &For Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 132

charitable in nature and benefit that trustees were getting could not be a sole reason to cancel registration of trust, cancellation of registration of assessee to be quashed. ➤ Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench A in the case of Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 1, Mumbai in [2019] 108 taxmann.com 272 (Mumbai - Trib.) wherein

AMIT KUMAR PAL,THRISSUR vs. WARD 1(1) THRISSUR, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 676/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2022-23 Amit Kumar Pal .......... Appellant House No. 31/321/1, Vakayil Road St. Marys Chappal, Chiyyaram, Thrissur [Pan: Bnhpp5857P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Anoop V. Francis, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Doing Job Work As Goldsmith. The Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 Was Filed On 30.12.2022 Declaring Income Of Rs. 6,82,690/-. The Search & Seizure Operations U/S. 132 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Were Conducted In The Business Premises Of M/S. Peeyar Exporters In The Month Of March, 2022. During The Course Of Search & Seizure Operations Certain Digital Evidences Were Found

For Appellant: Shri Anoop V. Francis, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 44A

search and seizure operations certain digital evidences were found 2 Amit Kumar Pal indicating that 790 grams of gold was deposited with the said company by the appellant as security deposit. When this evidence was confronted with the appellant, the appellant had offered to disclose this amount as additional income in the statement recorded from the appellant by the Investigation

MAGGY SUNNY( PROP.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS 916 KERALA SHOWROOM,TRIVANDRUM vs. THEITO, WD-3, KOTTAYAM

In the result, both the appeal and the Stay Petition filed by the assessee are

ITA 258/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

seizure operation was carried out on 21.08.2007 in the business and residential premises of the appellant at Kottayam and in the business premises of M/s Sunny Jacob Group of Jewellers at Kottayam, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram, simultaneously. Thereafter, the assessment proceedings were initiated u/s 153A for six years prior to the search and for the year of search as well