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.

54 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 143(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai835Delhi458Bangalore273Chennai251Ahmedabad166Pune165Jaipur147Kolkata143Hyderabad122Chandigarh77Indore61Cochin54Lucknow43Allahabad36Surat33Amritsar33Rajkot30Cuttack30Visakhapatnam28Agra26Nagpur26Bombay26Patna21Jodhpur20Raipur18Dehradun13Guwahati11Ranchi8SC7Jabalpur6Panaji4Varanasi2

Key Topics

Section 1195Section 12A70Section 26354Section 143(3)47Exemption46Section 11(2)36Charitable Trust34Section 2(15)31Section 143(1)25Addition to Income

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

3) & (4) of the Act for cancellation of registration. The written submissions of the assessee are reproduced below:- “a) Allegation: BEC is part of a non-independent group All entities under the Believers Church umbrella, including BEC, are independent charitable trusts registered under Section 12A of the Act. Mere sharing of trustees, premises, or administrative resources does not compromise their

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

23
Section 139(1)13
Disallowance9

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

3) & (4) of the Act for cancellation of registration. The written submissions of the assessee are reproduced below:- “a) Allegation: BEC is part of a non-independent group All entities under the Believers Church umbrella, including BEC, are independent charitable trusts registered under Section 12A of the Act. Mere sharing of trustees, premises, or administrative resources does not compromise their

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

3) & (4) of the Act for cancellation of registration. The written submissions of the assessee are reproduced below:- “a) Allegation: BEC is part of a non-independent group All entities under the Believers Church umbrella, including BEC, are independent charitable trusts registered under Section 12A of the Act. Mere sharing of trustees, premises, or administrative resources does not compromise their

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

3) & (4) of the Act for cancellation of registration. The written submissions of the assessee are reproduced below:- “a) Allegation: BEC is part of a non-independent group All entities under the Believers Church umbrella, including BEC, are independent charitable trusts registered under Section 12A of the Act. Mere sharing of trustees, premises, or administrative resources does not compromise their

GEEVARGHESE YOHANNAN CHARITABLE TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS , KOCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmemberand Shri Soundararajan K., Judicialmember Geevarghese Yohannan Charitable Cit(Exemption) 2Nd Floor, San Juan Towers Trust 12-H Capitol Centre, Statue Vs. Old Rly. Station Road Thiruvananthapuram 605001 Kochi 682018 [Pan: Aabtg3042K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

sections 143(3), 143(3A) and 143(3B) 2 Geevarghese Yohannan Charitable Trust of the Acthas made addition to the tune

ARVIND CHARITABLE TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/COCH/2024[AY 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

section 143(1) r.w.s 154 of the IT Act is beyond the scope of 143(1) proceedings. 2 ITA No.301/Coch/2024. Arvind Charitable Trust. 3

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER., THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 947/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

KATHIKODE CHARITABLE TRUST,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes, and it’s stay petitions dismissed as infructuous

ITA 948/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Jojo, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), raising demands, including interest, at Rs.28.47 lakhs and Rs.37.75 lakhs for the two consecutive years respectively. The assessee ITA Nos. 947 & 948/Coch/2022 (AY : 2014-15) Kathikode Charitable Trust v. ITO admittedly did not act thereon, stating that it was ‘awaiting’ – whatever that would mean; Sh. Jojo, the learned counsel

MRS.REENA JOSE,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE,, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

SRI.JOSE THOMAS,ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT,CEN-CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

143(3) for the assessment year 2009-10 4 ITA Nos.207/Coch/2019 & Ors. Reena Jose & Ors. in relation to the persons who were searched, namely, Gracy Babu, Jose Thomas and P.J. Paulose, who were the heads of the respective trustee families. No assessments in consequence to search were made in relation to other family members who were trustees by invoking provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI vs. YOGAKSHEMA TRUST, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 562/COCH/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Old Railway Station Road, Cochi 682018 [Pan: Aaaty0284A] Vs. Yogakshema Trust .......... Respondent Keshava Smrithi, Chitra Lane, Aluva 683101

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Krishna K., Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12Section 143(3)Section 250

section 11(2) of the IT Act to the extent that the purpose for which the amount is accumulated or set part is not specific and too general. 5. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust and directed

M/S MAHAKAVI EDASSERI SMARAKA TRUST,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION WARD, THRISSUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasmahakavi Edasseri Smaraka Trust Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) 0, Kumkumam, Kanattukara Thrissur Vs. Thrissur 680001 [Pan:Aadtm8374N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Section 167B, as a reading of the provision would show, is only where the shares of the beneficiaries of the trust are not known. The assessee, registered as a charitable trust, is a public body and, accordingly, there is no question of it’s beneficiaries being individual members, whose shares have therefore to be defined. The application thereof

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

143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 3,98,46,460/-. While doing so, the AO denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act by holding that the appellant had not complied with the mandatory condition of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act placing reliance on section 12A(1)(b) r.w.s

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

143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 3,98,46,460/-. While doing so, the AO denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act by holding that the appellant had not complied with the mandatory condition of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act placing reliance on section 12A(1)(b) r.w.s

SAVE A FAMILY PLAN (INDIA),,KANJOOR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

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

ITA 138/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Save A Family Plan (India) Dy. Cit, Exemption Aiswaryagram, Parappuram San Juan Towers, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kanjoor - 683575 Old Railway Station Road [Pan:Aabts9439E] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abraham J. Markose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

143(3) of the Act accepting the return of income filed by the appellant. 3. Subsequently, on examination of the assessment record the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Kochi formed an opinion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue for the failure of the DCIT (Exemption), Kochi (hereinafter the “AO”) to examine

VISHWAKARMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , EXEMPTION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 901/COCH/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cochin11 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvishwakarma Dy. Cit (Exemptions) Educational Trust Aayakar Bhavan 14, Ulloor Lane Peroorkada Road, Kowdiar Vs. Dpi Junction, Jagathy Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Trivandurm 695014 [Pan:Aaatv1824D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:11.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Dismissal Of It’S Appeal Contesting The Processing Of It’S Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19,By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (Nfac, Delhi) [Cit(A)] Vide Order Dated 25.7.2022. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered U/S. 12Aa Of The Act, Filed It’S Return Of Income For The Relevant Year On 28.8.2018 Declaring Nil Income, I.E., Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 On The Entirety Of It’S Income. The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act, Denying It The Benefit Of Section 11 Of The Act, I.E., At An Income Of Rs. 13,34,692. The Denial Of Exemption Was For The Reason Of Non-Audit Of It’S Accounts And, Consequently, Non-Filing Of The Audit Report, Required To Be Filed In The Prescribed Form (Form 10B), Along With The Return Of

For Appellant: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12Section 12(1)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

143(1)(a) of the Act. The same being confirmed in first appeal, the assessee is in second appeal. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Section 12A of the Act in its relevant part reads as under: - “Conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12. 12A. (1) The provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM vs. MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM

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

ITA 633/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shyju Joseph, CA
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

charitable trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. During the A.Y. 2017-18, the assessee filed their return of income and claimed the income as exempt u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessment was initially completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act in which the AO had accepted the claim of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the Ld.CIT