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.

657 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 22clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi657Mumbai616Karnataka480Chennai365Bangalore314Ahmedabad227Jaipur186Pune162Hyderabad133Kolkata106Chandigarh104Lucknow72Cuttack50Amritsar47Indore44Visakhapatnam43Cochin41Rajkot32Nagpur30Surat28Allahabad27Telangana19Raipur18Calcutta17Jodhpur16Agra15SC12Dehradun7Ranchi7Patna6Punjab & Haryana6Varanasi5Kerala5Panaji4Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh2Himachal Pradesh2Jabalpur1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Guwahati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 11109Exemption70Section 12A58Addition to Income44Section 143(3)29Section 234E28Section 2(15)25Charitable Trust25Section 11(1)(d)24

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

22,35,250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition

Showing 1–20 of 657 · Page 1 of 33

...
Section 1221
Section 69A18
Disallowance18

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

22,35,250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition

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

22,35,250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition

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

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

22,35,250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition

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

22,35,250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition

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

22,35,250/- by applying doctrine of telescoping. Saraswati Ammal Educational & Charitable Trust Vs. ACIT b) For AY 2015-16, ld. CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 3,01,62,065/- made towards interest on cash loans by applying the doctrine of telescoping. c). For AY 2016-17, ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition

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)

trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes.‖ 21. While on the subject of a charitable institution making donations to other charitable entities from out of income accumulated in terms of Section 11(2), it would also be apposite to note two Explanations which have come to be inserted in Section 11. 22

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)

trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes.‖ 21. While on the subject of a charitable institution making donations to other charitable entities from out of income accumulated in terms of Section 11(2), it would also be apposite to note two Explanations which have come to be inserted in Section 11. 22

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

section 32(v)(c) of the Act. The findings of the Inspecting Officer were not challenged before the competent court of law. 11.3 Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre of Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Public Charitable Trust Employees Union raised a demand vide notice dated Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:30.05.2023 16:16:35 Signature Not Verified LPA 99/2018

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)

22] In view of the above, it is held that the amount of Rs. 38,29,535 spent by the assessee-trust in Hanover, Germany cannot be considered as application of the income of the trust in India for charitable purposes….[Para 31]” 8 Bhagwant Singh Charitable Trust 7. On going through both the orders, we hold that the ratio

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

22 Gian Sagar Educational & Charitable Trust iv) To do all necessary things for and incidental or conducive for the attainment of the above objectives of the Trust. v) The above objects shall be independent of each other.” 40. We have also examined the provisions of Section

PATANJALI YOGPEETH (NYAS),DELHI vs. ADIT(EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2267/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri N. C. Swain, CIT [DR]
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 13Section 142Section 2(15)

section 10(22). The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was, therefore, justified.” (emphasis supplied) Further, according to Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Edition, Volume 5, paragraph 522) the advancement and propagation of education and learning generally are charitable purposes, even in the absence of an element of poverty in the class of beneficiaries, but the trust

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. AIPECCS SOCIETY

ITA/924/2009HC Delhi07 Oct 2015
For Appellant: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with
Section 10Section 158BSection 260A

charitable objects. 59. In view of the aforesaid, the exemption under Section 10(22) of the Act cannot be denied to the Assessee only for the reason that it had been generating surpluses. 60. The next aspect to be considered is whether the investments made by the Assessee would disentitle the Assessee to the exemption under Section 10(22). Section

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)

trust. (ii) The appellant has submitted that in A.Y. 2008-09, the A.O. has made the addition of Rs. 22,53,53.785/-, in the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2010. by holding anonymous donations and as such there is no applicability of section 115BBC/13(7) of the Act and the total income was determined

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)

charitable purpose as contained in the said section. During the course of hearing the appellant was directed to provide complete details of the Patanjali Bhartiya Ayurvigyan Avam Anusandhan Sansthan at Haridwar for imparting education in the field of ayurveda which started operations w.e.f. 20.7.2009. In compliance the Ld. AR submitted that during the year the appellant had applied substantial amount

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

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

ITA/1050/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

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

Section 1Section 260A

Section 61. Generally a person has to get rid of the asset itself before ceasing to be assessable in respect of the income from that asset. A mere direction that the income from the business shall be applied to the charitable objects of a trust, without there being a settlement of the business itself upon trust, does not result

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAY TRUST

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

ITA/770/2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012

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

Section 1Section 260A

Section 61. Generally a person has to get rid of the asset itself before ceasing to be assessable in respect of the income from that asset. A mere direction that the income from the business shall be applied to the charitable objects of a trust, without there being a settlement of the business itself upon trust, does not result

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

Section 61. Generally a person has to get rid of the asset itself before ceasing to be assessable in respect of the income from that asset. A mere direction that the income from the business shall be applied to the charitable objects of a trust, without there being a settlement of the business itself upon trust, does not result

CIT vs. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJNALAYA TRUST

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

ITA - 1050 / 2011HC Delhi20 Nov 2012
Section 1Section 260A

Section 61. Generally a person has to get rid of the asset itself before ceasing to be assessable in respect of the income from that asset. A mere direction that the income from the business shall be applied to the charitable objects of a trust, without there being a settlement of the business itself upon trust, does not result

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 - 18 / 2004HC Delhi20 Nov 2012
Section 1Section 260A

Section 61. Generally a person has to get rid of the asset itself before ceasing to be assessable in respect of the income from that asset. A mere direction that the income from the business shall be applied to the charitable objects of a trust, without there being a settlement of the business itself upon trust, does not result