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.

165 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 153Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi165Mumbai110Chennai64Hyderabad55Bangalore51Cochin46Jaipur25Allahabad16Chandigarh14Pune13Lucknow12Indore9Patna8Amritsar6Kerala5Dehradun5Rajkot5Nagpur4Telangana3Agra3Cuttack3Jodhpur2Rajasthan1Kolkata1SC1Karnataka1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 153A55Section 153C46Section 13239Section 26339Addition to Income39Section 69A29Section 12A27Search & Seizure23Natural Justice18Section 143(3)

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5946/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is in contravention of the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act where no incriminating material was found from the search operation conducted at the assessee’s premises u/s. 132 of the Act and no admission was made by the assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was subject transaction

SATISH DEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 165 · Page 1 of 9

...
15
Section 37(1)15
Disallowance14
ITA 5955/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed
ITAT Delhi
30 Jul 2019
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is in contravention of the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act where no incriminating material was found from the search operation conducted at the assessee’s premises u/s. 132 of the Act and no admission was made by the assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was subject transaction

ANAND JAIN HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5945/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is in contravention of the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act where no incriminating material was found from the search operation conducted at the assessee’s premises u/s. 132 of the Act and no admission was made by the assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was subject transaction

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5947/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is in contravention of the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act where no incriminating material was found from the search operation conducted at the assessee’s premises u/s. 132 of the Act and no admission was made by the assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was subject transaction

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4723/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is in contravention of the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act where no incriminating material was found from the search operation conducted at the assessee’s premises u/s. 132 of the Act and no admission was made by the assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was subject transaction

SAJAN KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5949/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is in contravention of the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act where no incriminating material was found from the search operation conducted at the assessee’s premises u/s. 132 of the Act and no admission was made by the assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was subject transaction

ANAND KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 25, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5948/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 which is in contravention of the provisions of section 153C of the I.T. Act where no incriminating material was found from the search operation conducted at the assessee’s premises u/s. 132 of the Act and no admission was made by the assessee u/s. 132(4) of the Act was subject transaction

COMMITMENT MORTALITY VISION EDUCATION SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3980/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 153C

trust has not shown any evidence that the said company i.e. JEE , carried out charitable activities during the year under consideration and, hence, assessee society was held to have contravened the provisions relating to application of income for charitable purpose and accordingly, the benefit under section 11 and section 12 of the Act was denied to the assessee

COMMITMENT MORTALITY VISION EDUCATION SOCIETY,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3981/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 153C

trust has not shown any evidence that the said company i.e. JEE , carried out charitable activities during the year under consideration and, hence, assessee society was held to have contravened the provisions relating to application of income for charitable purpose and accordingly, the benefit under section 11 and section 12 of the Act was denied to the assessee

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHARAJI EDUCATION TRUST, GHAZIABAD

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

charitable trust carrying on activities in the field of education. It is a part of Santosh Group, which is also engaged in the field of education in Medical, Dental, Para-medical and other courses. For AY 2007-08, assessee filed its return of income on 31st October, 2007 4. stating that it has excess of expenditure over income amounting

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MODI INDUSTRIES LTD., GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2774/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1564/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1563/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1539/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

SARAYA INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4692/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S. SIMBHAOLI SUGARS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5572/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S NARANG DISTILLERY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5056/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S. U.P. DISTILLERY ASSOCIATION,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3208/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DCM SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1650/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss

M/S. SUPERIOR INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 721/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 34) are admissible under Section 9 of the Act to support an inference about the formers' correctness still those entries would not be sufficient to charge Shri Advani and Shri Shukla with the accusations levelled against them for there is not an iota of independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss