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.

3 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 10(34)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi485Karnataka430Mumbai425Chennai222Bangalore182Pune96Jaipur88Hyderabad83Kolkata62Surat49Ahmedabad45Lucknow44Chandigarh39Allahabad31Indore29Jodhpur23Visakhapatnam18Calcutta17Amritsar16Cochin15Panaji14Telangana12Agra11Rajkot9SC8Nagpur8Raipur7Cuttack6Kerala5Dehradun3Rajasthan3Patna2Orissa2Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 12A22Section 115Section 1275Section 405Section 143(3)3Exemption3Section 1322Limitation/Time-bar2

DR. VIRENDRA SWAROOP EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION,KANPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2023-24] Dr. Virendra Swaroop Vs Acit Educational Foundation Central Circle 15/96, Civil Lines, Kanpur Dehradun Uttar Pradesh-208001 Pan-Aaajd0224D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv. Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Shri Sumit Lal Chandanim, Adv. Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.09.2025 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur [“Pcit”] Passed U/S 12(Ab)(4)(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961[“The Act”] Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12A Of The Act From Assessment Year 2023-24 & Onwards.

Section 11Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)

34 of the impugned order, the ld. PCIT mentions, “it was noticed that the assessee trust has committed one or more specified violation. Thereafter, information was called for from the assessee trust by this letter dated 08.09.2022.” We are of the view that when Ld. PCIT was assuming jurisdiction under clause (a) to Section 12AB(4), then while calling

M/S SUSHILA DEVI CENTRE FOR PROFESSIONAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH,DEHRADUN vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), KANPUR (JAO- DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN), DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/DDN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Oct 2025AY 2024-25
Section 127Section 127(2)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)

34 of the impugned order, the ld.\nPCIT mentions, “it was noticed that the assessee trust has committed one or more\nspecified violation. Thereafter, information was called for from the assessee trust by\nthis letter dated 08.09.2022." We are of the view that when Ld. PCIT was assuming\njurisdiction under clause (a) to Section 12AB(4), then while calling

INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH INDIA SOCIETY,DEHRADUN vs. CIT(A), DEHRADUN

Appeal is allowed

ITA 45/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Institute Of Clinical Research Vs. Commissioner Of Income India Society, Tax (Appeals), 1St Floor, Building No.1, Dehradun Treenetra Vihar, Near Kargt Chowk, Dehradun Pan :Aabai3710P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 12ASection 194Section 194JSection 2(15)Section 40

10,250/-, in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee/appellate; who happens to be the registered trust, is already entitled for section 11 exemption; and, therefore, we are of the considered view that such a disallowance made