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.

71 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 153Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi71Hyderabad42Allahabad16Pune9Jaipur7Chandigarh6Dehradun4Bangalore4Agra3Chennai3Mumbai2

Key Topics

Section 113Section 12A2Section 132(1)2Section 153A2Addition to Income2

M/S. RAMPRASTHA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3245/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

Charitable Trust without considering the facts of the case and without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to justify its claim. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the contentions of Assessing Officer in challenging the genuineness of the various liabilities amounting to Rs.1,98,060/- shown under the head “Current Liabilities” by the appellant as the said

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2013/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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

U.P. DISTILLERS ASSOCIATION PHD HOUSE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2001-02

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2772/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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SVP INDUSTRIES LTD., MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SIMBHAOLI SUGARS, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3001/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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1538/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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

MODI INDUSTRIES LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2177/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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3210/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1658/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

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

153B(b) of the Act, as stated hereinabove, the Assessing Officer had to frame assessment order by 22.03.2008, excluding the period of stay and adding the same period to nine months whereas assessment order is framed on 30.12.2008 and is, therefore, well beyond the period of limitation. In our considered opinion, when the stay got vacated on 07.05.2017 and there