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.

2 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 80G(5)(vi)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai218Pune193Delhi181Kolkata126Jaipur113Ahmedabad98Bangalore85Chennai80Surat39Lucknow33Indore31Rajkot29Hyderabad27Chandigarh26Nagpur23Amritsar13Agra12Raipur11Cochin8Visakhapatnam7Karnataka7Jodhpur6Cuttack6Allahabad5Panaji5Jabalpur4Patna3Punjab & Haryana2Dehradun2Telangana2Varanasi2Rajasthan1SC1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 12A12Section 80G(5)8Section 102Section 80G(5)(vi)2Exemption2Revision u/s 2632

BALJEET SADHNA KENDER TRUST ,HARIDWAR vs. CIT(E) , LUCKNOW

In the result appeal i.e

ITA 364/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Feb 2022

Bench: Shrir. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: ShriRampal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, ld CIT DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of the activities.Despite being provided timely opportunity the applicant has not been able to substantiate its claim. Ld. Commissioner further held that I am unable to accept the applicant’s claim in absence of sufficient material required for formation of satisfaction. 3. Before us the ld. AR of the Assessee contended that though

BALJEET SADHNA KENDER TRUST ,HARIDWAR vs. CIT(E) , LUCKNOW

In the result appeal i.e

ITA 363/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Feb 2022

Bench: Shrir. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: ShriRampal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, ld CIT DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

charitable nature of the objects and genuineness of the activities.Despite being provided timely opportunity the applicant has not been able to substantiate its claim. Ld. Commissioner further held that I am unable to accept the applicant’s claim in absence of sufficient material required for formation of satisfaction. 3. Before us the ld. AR of the Assessee contended that though