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.

268 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 2(14)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai925Delhi916Karnataka567Chennai486Bangalore450Ahmedabad296Pune274Jaipur268Hyderabad191Kolkata173Chandigarh131Cochin102Amritsar90Indore80Rajkot76Lucknow71Surat71Cuttack64Visakhapatnam56Raipur35Allahabad33Agra33Nagpur32Telangana30Jodhpur23Patna22Calcutta19SC14Ranchi10Kerala9Dehradun8Guwahati8Rajasthan7Varanasi7Punjab & Haryana6Panaji5Jabalpur4Andhra Pradesh2Orissa2Himachal Pradesh2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 12A219Exemption72Section 80G61Section 1156Section 26343Addition to Income37Section 143(3)36Section 13(3)23Section 1023

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

ITA 105/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar (CIT)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 32

trust” for charitable purpose and the income earned by the society can be used and is actually used only for the “charitable purpose” as defined u/s 2(15) of the Act. 14. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noted that the prime reason for denial of exemption under section

Showing 1–20 of 268 · Page 1 of 14

...
Section 2(15)22
Condonation of Delay20
Deduction14

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 284/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

trust or institution is to carry out object of general public utility and this is the primary or dominant purpose and not carrying on any activity for profit, ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. the same would satisfy the requirements of section 2(15) of the Act. Here, the main object of the appellant was providing financial help

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN CRICEKT ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 1356/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

trust or institution is to carry out object of general public utility and this is the primary or dominant purpose and not carrying on any activity for profit, ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. the same would satisfy the requirements of section 2(15) of the Act. Here, the main object of the appellant was providing financial help

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

ITA 1355/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT) &

trust or institution is to carry out object of general public utility and this is the primary or dominant purpose and not carrying on any activity for profit, ITO Vs. Rajasthan Cricket Association. the same would satisfy the requirements of section 2(15) of the Act. Here, the main object of the appellant was providing financial help

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 68/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Trust v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 636/96 Taxman 635 which was rendered in context of section 11 while discussing the principle of accumulation and utilization of surplus for educational purposes in para 19 of its order as under: "...9. In the present case, the assessee is not claiming any benefit u/s 11(2) as it cannot, because in respect

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 66/JPR/2022[2005]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Trust v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 636/96 Taxman 635 which was rendered in context of section 11 while discussing the principle of accumulation and utilization of surplus for educational purposes in para 19 of its order as under: "...9. In the present case, the assessee is not claiming any benefit u/s 11(2) as it cannot, because in respect

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 67/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Manisha Chandra, CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

Trust v. CIT [1998] 230 ITR 636/96 Taxman 635 which was rendered in context of section 11 while discussing the principle of accumulation and utilization of surplus for educational purposes in para 19 of its order as under: "...9. In the present case, the assessee is not claiming any benefit u/s 11(2) as it cannot, because in respect

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 290/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Rajendra Singh (CIT)
Section 10Section 12ASection 154Section 24Section 263Section 297

charitable purposes as so contained in section 4(3)(i) of Act of 1922. Unlike provisions contained in section 4(3)(i) of the Act of 1922, the provisions of section 11(1)(a)/(b) of the Act of 1961 are subject to satisfaction of various conditions relating to application, accumulation, manner of investment, etc, and more importantly, registration with

BHIWADI INTEGRATED DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

ITA 595/JPR/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jan 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (C.A.)&For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 9

14. Section 12AA, lays down the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner for grant or refusal of the application seeking registration under clause (a) or clause (aa) of sub- section (1) of Section 12A. As per the procedure laid down, the registration shall be granted by the Commissioner on being satisfied about the objects of the trust or institution

THE JEWELLERS ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 36

14,49,500/- as advertisement receipts and Rs. 1,22,165/- as subscription for journal Gem World published by the society; Rs.25,95,083/- as receipt from room facility and tourists, Rs.9,09,447/- as receipt from occasion of marriage and other functions organized at Janupyogi Bhawan and Rs.2,02,56,000/- from participation charges and Rs.4,37,996/- from

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

14. In our opinion, these observations have to be understood in the light of the facts before the Supreme Court in the case of Thanthi Trust (supra), wherein the trust carried on the business of a newspaper and that business itself was held under trust. The charitable object of the trust was the imparting of education which falls u/s.2

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 666/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act [Here in after referred as “Act” ], by the DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur. ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 Jodhpur Development Authority 2. Since, the facts of both the cases are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order together. The facts and grounds are taken from the folder of Jodhpur

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

ITA 665/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 234A

section 143(3)/144 of the Income Tax Act [Here in after referred as “Act” ], by the DCIT(Exemption), Circle, Jaipur. ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 Jodhpur Development Authority 2. Since, the facts of both the cases are identical, we have heard these cases together and passing the order together. The facts and grounds are taken from the folder of Jodhpur

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 57/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Maheshwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 164(2)

2. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred in invoking provision of sec. 13(1)(d)(iii) on investment in Shares and assessed the trust under normal provision of I.T. Act, 1961, when the law/judicial view is to tax only the income earned from said investments. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not considering the order

MANDIR SHREE BHAIRAV JI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

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

ITA 427/JPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2023

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vikash Rajvanshi (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

section or sex in India not dedicated to only one religion or caste. Hence, our trust is charitable trust eligible for registration u/s 80G(5) Also in similar Decision of ITAT ‘CUTTACK’ BENCH vide I.T.A. No. 270/CTK/ 2014 in case of Shree Ram Mandir Seva Samiti, Vs. CIT Bhubaneswar Trust was considered as charitable trust eligible for registration fulfilling conditions

ALL INDIA SECURITISATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ASSOCIATION,CHITRANJAN MARG vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KAILASH HEIGHT,

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 627/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Rajvanshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

2 of CIT Order\n\nThe CIT states that \" In the absence of registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, assessee is\nnot eligible for registration u/s 12AB.\"\n\nThe assessee trust is a charitable trust duly registered with Sub- Registrar, Jaipur V vide registration\nendorsement serial number 2007397010949 on dated 20.07.2007 vide PB No.1-17. Further the trust\namended

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 270/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15) is applicable in the instant case. As per the Assessing officer, the activities of the assessee corporation are commercial in nature for the reason that it is running buses and charging fare from the passengers and it is not providing free services to the public. The ld CIT(A) referred to the decision

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 268/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15) is applicable in the instant case. As per the Assessing officer, the activities of the assessee corporation are commercial in nature for the reason that it is running buses and charging fare from the passengers and it is not providing free services to the public. The ld CIT(A) referred to the decision

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 269/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15) is applicable in the instant case. As per the Assessing officer, the activities of the assessee corporation are commercial in nature for the reason that it is running buses and charging fare from the passengers and it is not providing free services to the public. The ld CIT(A) referred to the decision

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15) is applicable in the instant case. As per the Assessing officer, the activities of the assessee corporation are commercial in nature for the reason that it is running buses and charging fare from the passengers and it is not providing free services to the public. The ld CIT(A) referred to the decision