Search: charitable trust | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

30 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 64clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka454 Delhi394 Mumbai218 Chennai128 Bangalore119 Jaipur89 Ahmedabad65 Hyderabad62 Chandigarh49 Pune43 Kolkata41 Cochin30 Lucknow27 Visakhapatnam24 Cuttack22 Calcutta16 Allahabad12 Indore10 Agra9 Rajkot9 Telangana9 SC7 Nagpur6 Surat5 Raipur5 Varanasi4 Patna3 Amritsar3 Ranchi2 Rajasthan2 Jodhpur2 Jabalpur1 Andhra Pradesh1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income27 Section 12A18 Section 1113 Exemption8 Charitable Trust7 Section 143(3)6 Section 142(1)4 Section 11(1)4 Section 2633 Section 2(15)3 Section 2502

SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), KOZHIKODE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 205/COCH/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 147Section 2

charitable trust. Sections 12A and 12AA detail the procedural requirements for making an application to claim exemptions under sections 11 and 12 by the assessee and the grant or rejection of such application by the commissioner. Thus, in our view, sections 12A and 12AA are only procedural in nature. Hence, it is not the registration u/s 12AA by itself that

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 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

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 34/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, 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

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

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 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

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

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

ITA 238/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 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

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 28/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,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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 35/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

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

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

ITA 55/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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 30/COCH/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

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 31/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

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

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

ITA 54/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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/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

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2