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.

36 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 22clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi676Mumbai626Karnataka480Chennai366Bangalore321Ahmedabad222Jaipur176Pune138Hyderabad132Kolkata106Chandigarh88Lucknow62Amritsar46Indore43Cuttack36Cochin35Rajkot30Visakhapatnam29Nagpur29Allahabad27Surat26Telangana19Calcutta17Raipur16Jodhpur16Agra14SC12Patna7Dehradun7Punjab & Haryana6Kerala5Varanasi5Panaji4Rajasthan3Himachal Pradesh2Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1Orissa1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 1045Section 26333Section 1129Section 12A25Charitable Trust23Exemption18Section 80G13Section 143(3)12Section 26012Section 2(15)

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 266/CTK/2019[2008--09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 267/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

9
Revision u/s 2639
Addition to Income7
15 Feb 2021
AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 470/CTK/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 270/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 268/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 264/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 471/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 261/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BERHAMPUR vs. DCIT, BERHAMPUR CIRCLE, BERHAMPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 469/CTK/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

RONALD EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 368/CTK/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND INSTITUTE OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 269/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 262/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 263/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

ROLAND EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,GANJAM vs. CHEIF CIT, BHUBANESWAR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 265/CTK/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. TulsiyanFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Goutham, CIT-DR
Section 10

Charitable Trust, Berahampur Court had held that the expression 'solely' means exclusively and not primarily. This case was decided in the context of erstwhile provisions of section 10(22

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 137/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

Charitable Trust VS. AQIT (Exemption) (ITAT,Delhi) (65 ITD 125), the Tribunal held that a part of trust income was being used directly or indirectly for the benefits of its founder and Managing Director - No exemption u/s. 11 or 10(22). 3.4 In view of the discussions made above and since the assessee trust violates the provisions of section

M/S. NABADIGANT EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri B.R.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

Charitable Trust VS. AQIT (Exemption) (ITAT,Delhi) (65 ITD 125), the Tribunal held that a part of trust income was being used directly or indirectly for the benefits of its founder and Managing Director - No exemption u/s. 11 or 10(22). 3.4 In view of the discussions made above and since the assessee trust violates the provisions of section

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2005-06
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

trust had already applied its receipts for charitable purpose, therefore, it is entitled for the exemption available to it. Ld. AR further submitted that in the order, the ld. Pr.CIT himself has admitted that the assessment order is though could be held as erroneous but since the assessee is not liable to tax as it has made the necessary application

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2004-05
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

trust had already applied its receipts for charitable purpose, therefore, it is entitled for the exemption available to it. Ld. AR further submitted that in the order, the ld. Pr.CIT himself has admitted that the assessment order is though could be held as erroneous but since the assessee is not liable to tax as it has made the necessary application

PARADIP PORT AUTHORITY,JAGATSINGHPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 208/CTK/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2003-04
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

trust had already applied its receipts for charitable purpose, therefore, it is entitled for the exemption available to it. Ld. AR further submitted that in the order, the ld. Pr.CIT himself has admitted that the assessment order is though could be held as erroneous but since the assessee is not liable to tax as it has made the necessary application

ORISSA OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION,CUTTACK vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: S/Shri S.K.Tulsyan/Digat Dash, ARsFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 4(3)

section 2(15) of the Act as amended w.e.f. 1.4.2009. 22. Further, as per order of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dahisar Sports Foundation (supra), it is clear that if the objects of the trust are charitable