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.

11 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi11Chandigarh9Ahmedabad9Jaipur7Bangalore5Indore4Kolkata3Mumbai2Hyderabad1Cochin1Lucknow1Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 143(1)17Section 3611Section 10(38)8Section 2(24)8Section 36(1)(viia)6Charitable Trust6Section 43B5Disallowance5Addition to Income

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,NEW DELHI vs. WARD- 49(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1905/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia) for delayed payment of employees’ contribution as per the due date prescribed under the PF / ESI legislature

5
Section 104
Section 2634
Condonation of Delay2

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,NEW DELHI vs. WARD- 49(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1906/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia) for delayed payment of employees’ contribution as per the due date prescribed under the PF / ESI legislature

MITHILA AND MITHILA ENTERPRISE,DELHI vs. WARD 49(4) DELHI , DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1904/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, A N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia(Through Video Conferencing) आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A Nos. 1904, 1905 & 1906/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Mithila & Mithila Enterprises, Assessing Officer, C-22, New Krishna Park, बनाम Ward : 49 (4), Vikas Puri, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 018. Pan No. Aasfm1647F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Pundir, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: 24/02/2022
Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India (1991) 212 ITR 496 (Cal.); (F) Mintri Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2009) 319 ITR 264 (Cal). 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that no disallowance can be made under Section 36(1)(viia) for delayed payment of employees’ contribution as per the due date prescribed under the PF / ESI legislature

NOVO MANAGEMENT CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in this appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed

ITA 973/DEL/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmanovo Management Consulting Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pvt Ltd, 440, Ground Floor, Gali Ward-18(4), No D-22, Chattarpur, Pahari, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecn5211B

For Appellant: Shri Vivan Katyal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the fact that the amendment brought by Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36 is applicable prospectively with effect from 01st April, 2021.” 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. On behalf of the Assessee it was submitted that the admitted

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3792/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

Charitable Trust v. ITO reported in [2017] 249 Taxmann.com 372 (Mad) had considered an identical issue and held that where assessee’s institution engaged Chartered Accountant who was unaware of fact that as a result of amendment made in Sec.253(l)(c), an appeal could be filed against the order of the Commissioner rejecting application u/s. 12AA

MONICA GOLD PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED,KHASRA NO. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(2), C R BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3791/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3791 & 3792/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 260A

Charitable Trust v. ITO reported in [2017] 249 Taxmann.com 372 (Mad) had considered an identical issue and held that where assessee’s institution engaged Chartered Accountant who was unaware of fact that as a result of amendment made in Sec.253(l)(c), an appeal could be filed against the order of the Commissioner rejecting application u/s. 12AA

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 2(24)Section 71Section 74

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause

SHIV KUMAR JATIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 10(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7256/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7256/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 241/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-50, Gulmohar Park, Ward-10(2), New Delhi-110049 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpj7582K Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 2(24)Section 71Section 74

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause

KAUR KOOKIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

va) of the Act.” 4.4 It is however submitted that in view of aforesaid fact that disallowance has already been made by appellant; there is no prejudice to revenue and infact order is also not erroneous. It is further submitted that even the finding that assessee may claim it in next year on the basis of payment during the year

SHANKAR TRADING COMPANY P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 651/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Charitable Trust agreeing not to indulge in competition with the assessee within a radius less than 1000 kms from the demises property, constitutes capital expenditure. 3.1 The assessee in compliance to the order of the Hon’ble High Court attributed different percentage of enhanced lease rentals towards revenue expenditure and worked out nil expenditure towards capital expenditure. Computation

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-1) vs. LATE SHRI SUDHIR SAREEN

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

Section 376 of IPC, the husband would be protected because of MRE. It cannot be the State's policy or in its interest to prosecute only some rapists and not those who are married to the victim in such cases. 46.1. MRE grants blanket immunity to sexual acts enumerated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section