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.

51 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 139(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka451Mumbai311Delhi254Chennai202Bangalore141Kolkata98Pune88Ahmedabad84Jaipur77Hyderabad76Chandigarh58Cochin51Indore38Lucknow33Amritsar26Allahabad21Calcutta18Rajkot15Cuttack13Nagpur13Surat12Dehradun9Telangana9Jodhpur8Visakhapatnam7Agra7Raipur5Patna4Ranchi4Jabalpur3Rajasthan3Varanasi3Guwahati2Punjab & Haryana2Panaji2SC2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 1184Section 12A78Section 139(1)43Addition to Income36Exemption28Charitable Trust22Section 14820Section 143(1)15Section 1315

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 259/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2010-11

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

4 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 2) Vanitha Vishram Trust vs. Chief CIT (327 ITR 121 (Bombay). 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is the violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is only liable to pay tax on maximum margin rate and not on the entire income but only to the extent

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

Section 14712
Section 13911
Cash Deposit8

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 260/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

4 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 2) Vanitha Vishram Trust vs. Chief CIT (327 ITR 121 (Bombay). 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is the violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is only liable to pay tax on maximum margin rate and not on the entire income but only to the extent

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 261/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

4 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 2) Vanitha Vishram Trust vs. Chief CIT (327 ITR 121 (Bombay). 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is the violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is only liable to pay tax on maximum margin rate and not on the entire income but only to the extent

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 257/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

4 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 2) Vanitha Vishram Trust vs. Chief CIT (327 ITR 121 (Bombay). 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is the violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is only liable to pay tax on maximum margin rate and not on the entire income but only to the extent

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 255/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

4 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 2) Vanitha Vishram Trust vs. Chief CIT (327 ITR 121 (Bombay). 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is the violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is only liable to pay tax on maximum margin rate and not on the entire income but only to the extent

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 256/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

4 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 2) Vanitha Vishram Trust vs. Chief CIT (327 ITR 121 (Bombay). 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is the violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is only liable to pay tax on maximum margin rate and not on the entire income but only to the extent

M/S.KUNHITHARUVAI MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, CALICUT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed of as follows:

ITA 258/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10ASection 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

4 I.T.A. Nos.255-261/Coch/2018 2) Vanitha Vishram Trust vs. Chief CIT (327 ITR 121 (Bombay). 5.3 The Ld. AR submitted that even if there is the violation of sections 11(5) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee is only liable to pay tax on maximum margin rate and not on the entire income but only to the extent

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ST JOSEPHS PROVINCE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 443/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13Section 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 21A

139 for furnishing the return of income for the said previous year. 10. From a reading of the order of the CIT(A) it would manifest that the CIT(A) had granted exemption u/s. 11 by holding that provisions of sub-section (9) of section 13 are not applicable to religious charitable trusts. Admittedly, the appellant trust is a charitable

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ST. JOSEPHS PROVINCE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 442/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13Section 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 21A

139 for furnishing the return of income for the said previous year. 10. From a reading of the order of the CIT(A) it would manifest that the CIT(A) had granted exemption u/s. 11 by holding that provisions of sub-section (9) of section 13 are not applicable to religious charitable trusts. Admittedly, the appellant trust is a charitable

ALL INDIA SPICES EXPORTERS FORUM,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, ERNAKULAM

Appeal is allowed, Ground No

ITA 1072/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Expiry Of Time Allowed U/S 139(1). As Per Section 11(2), As Applicable For Ay 2014-15 There Was No Date Specified As To The Period Within Which The Form Has To Be Filed For Availing Exemption. The Amendment In Section 11(2) That Filing Of Necessary Forms Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As A Pre-Condition To Claim The Exemption Under Section 11(2) Was Substituted By The Finance Act With Effect From 01.04.2016 Which Is Not Applicable For Ay 2014- 15. Hence The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Went Wrong In Denying The Exemption.

For Appellant: Shri. G Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

trust or institution. xx xx xx xx Further, as per the existing provisions of said section, the entities registered under section 12AA are required to file return of income under sub-section (4A) of section 139, if the total income without giving effect to the provisions of sections 11 and 12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable

MRS.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 306/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 309/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

SMT.GRACY BABU,ADOOR P.O. vs. THE DCIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 33/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 304/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 308/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 310/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 29/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

CARMEL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. DCIT,CEN- CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 305/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just

THE ACIT CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM vs. SMT.GRACY BABU, ADOOR P.O.

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 239/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

section 13 of the I.T. Act by the Trust and the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were misdirected in considering it’s activity of running an Engineering College as running of a business. 4. Trust claimed utilization and set off of carry forward deficit for earlier years but the CIT(A) erred in not considering such claim, just