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.

1,549 results for “charitable trust”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,803Delhi1,549Chennai1,054Ahmedabad862Bangalore820Pune776Karnataka587Kolkata503Jaipur462Hyderabad278Surat239Cochin212Chandigarh199Amritsar169Indore156Lucknow150Cuttack149Rajkot144Visakhapatnam130Nagpur113Agra60Raipur58Jodhpur56Patna43Calcutta42Telangana33Ranchi32Dehradun30Allahabad27Panaji25Jabalpur22SC22Varanasi20Guwahati19Kerala13Punjab & Haryana10Rajasthan9Orissa5Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2J&K1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 12A172Section 11110Exemption86Section 80G60Addition to Income34Section 1029Section 143(1)27Charitable Trust26Section 11(2)23Section 11(1)(d)

INCOME TAX OFFICER(E) WARD- 2(4), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE NEW DELHI vs. PRAKASH SEWA TRUST, PASCHIM VIHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4305/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

exemption u/s 11 &\n12 can be denied if the trust is found to have diverted income, violated the objects of\nthe trust, or applied income for non-charitable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2288/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Showing 1–20 of 1,549 · Page 1 of 78

...
23
Section 1219
Deduction16
Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2289/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2291/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2181/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2291/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

NATASHA CHOPRA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 16(1), DELHI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2290/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

trust. Both the above said parties have initially stated that they had received money from Tukaram Patil and others, but later retracted it. In any case, no contra entry was available in the record maintained by Shri TukaramPatil. Further, the revenue did not examine Tukaram Patil with regard to the entries of receipt of cash noted by Taruna Maheswari

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. ANIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,

ITA/99/2018HC Delhi31 Jan 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 32Section 80G

exemption of section 32(v)(c) of the Act. 4. The management filed written statement to contest the statement of claim preferred by the workmen. The management in preliminary objections stated that actual name and the description of the management is Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre of Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust

DCIT (EXEMPTION), UTTAR PRADESH vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

ITA 5612/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

exemption in the hands of charitable trusts of amounts aid as donation to other charitable trusts. The issue has been

BHAGWANT SINGH CHARITABLE TRUST,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6920/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Batra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(c)Section 164(2)Section 2(15)

charitable purposes, the trust will not secure the exemption from tax in respect of such income. Two situations were anticipated

ACIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST,, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 745/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2010-11 Acit (Exemption) Vs Divya Yog Mandir Trust Circle, Cgo-1 Kripalu Bag, Hapur Road, Kankhal, Haridwar Ghaziabad (Pan Aaatd1114E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate
Section 11Section 12Section 143Section 2(15)

charitable purpose in the hands of the donee trust and the donor trust will not loose exemption u/s 11 of the Income

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Exemptions), Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Kripalu Bagh, Cgo-Ii, Vs Kankhal, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Haridwar. Ghaziabad. (Pan: Aaatd1114E) Appellant Respondent Department By: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rohti Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rohti Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 43B

charitable purpose in the hands of the donee trust and the donor trust will not loose exemption u/s 11 of the Income

GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6054/DEL/2018[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2020

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module) Ita No. 6054/Del./2018 : Asstt. Year : Gian Sagar Educational & Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Charitable Trust, Flat No. 509, Tax, Central Circle-27, 5Th Floor, Indraprakash Building, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatg5827B Assessee By : Sh. Amol Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.09.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Amol Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

exemption on the income so generated under section 11 and 12 of the I.T. Act. It is further noted that due to nexus of corruption by way of bribe and criminal misconduct by the assessee trust, registration of the trust was cancelled since inception u/s 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 14 Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable

M/S GIAN SAGAR EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3801/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Gian Sagar Educational Vs. Dcit & Charitable Trust, Central Circle-29, Sco 10-110, Sector 43B, New Delhi Chandigarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaatg5827B

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvFor Respondent: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133(6)

Exemption) vs. Keshav Social & Charitable Foundation (2005) 278 ITR 152 (Del) High Court of Delhi In view of the above judicial pronouncements, application of income is to he allowed as the registration u/s 12AA is continuing & therefore, the activities of the trust

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

ITA/808/2017HC Delhi31 May 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

exemption which is specifically allowed by the statute. In fact, as per the law as stood from April 1, 1976, charitable trusts

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION

ITA-808/2017HC Delhi31 May 2024
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)(c)Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

exemption which is specifically allowed by the statute. In fact, as per the law as stood from April 1, 1976, charitable trusts

ITO TRUST WARD-IV vs. MISRA CHARITABLE TRUST,

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1222/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. P Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

Charitable Trust, (Exemptions), MCT House, Block-A, Vs. Trust, Ward-IV, Delhi Okhla Centre, Opp Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA/309/2003HC Delhi20 Nov 2012
Section 11Section 260A

exemption under Section 11. The CIT (Appeals) was not persuaded by the submissions of the assessee. After examining the trust deed, he made a distinction between the objects of the trust and the powers of the trustees and held that though the objects as per the trust deed were undoubtedly charitable

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. OM CHARITABLE TRUST, MEERUT

In the result, Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4961/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 11(5)(x)Section 12A

Charitable Trust the trust even though the facts clearly points towards it. Thus neither of the grounds taken by the AO as mentioned in para 3.3 above succeeds. Consequently, the grounds of appeal 1 to 6 and 8 are allowed. The AO is accordingly directed to re-compute the income of the appellant by allowing the exemption

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

ITA/1051/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 1Section 260A

exemption under Section 11 The CIT (Appeals) was not persuaded by the submissions of the assessee. After examining the trust deed, he made a distinction between the objects of the trust and the powers of the trustees and held that though the objects as per the trust deed were undoubtedly charitable