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.

23 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 234clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka448Delhi194Mumbai121Bangalore79Chennai43Ahmedabad29Jaipur23Pune20Cuttack17Calcutta16Kolkata14Chandigarh13Lucknow11Amritsar8Rajkot7SC5Cochin5Telangana4Varanasi4Visakhapatnam4Raipur4Kerala3Indore3Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh2Nagpur2Jodhpur2Panaji2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Hyderabad1Ranchi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 26334Section 12A33Addition to Income15Section 14714Section 1014Exemption14Section 143(3)11Section 1110Section 143(2)9

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)

Trust. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not allowing the depreciation & did different interpretation which is not based on earlier order of Higher Authorities. 6. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred in charging tax on Charitable expenditure i.e. Food for hunger Rs. 3,52,338.00. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not considering the ground

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

Section 1489
Limitation/Time-bar7
Deduction4

SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev sogani (C.A) &For Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 234B

234 of 2016 dated 23-10-2017 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that :- ‘’31. In all these cases, the impugned orders were passed after the respective dates of grant of registration. Thus, we hold that subsequent grant of registration in all these cases operates retrospectively for all the relevant years under consideration." 5.The Central Board of Direct Taxes

SHREE RAJPUT SABHA,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/JPR/2020[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2024AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

charitable purpose. To drive home Hon'ble Supreme Court's in the case\nof in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC), all\nkinds of acquiring knowledge will not come within the meaning of \"education\nas appearing in Sec. 2(15). What \"education\" Connotes is systematic instruction\nby way of normal schooling.\nTherefore, he held

PANDE FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST,BAJAJ NAGAR ENCLAVE, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KAILASH HEIGHTS, LAL KOTHI,TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

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

ITA 990/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2024-25

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad (C.A.) (Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) ( Th. V.C.)
Section 12A

section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 31.12.2021 is also being cancelled. Further assessee has failed to give proper justification for regularization of provisional registration, thus with this order provisional registration is also lapsed and cancelled.” 4. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the ld. CIT(E), the assessee has preferred an appeal before us. The assessee

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 39/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging\nof any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of\nlaw and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.\n4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any\nof the grounds of the appeal on or before

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 41/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 144Section 147Section 151Section 234

234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging\nof any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of\nlaw and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.\n4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any\nof the grounds of the appeal on or before

PANCHAYTI DHARAMSHALA KASERAN TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 12Section 143(1)Section 234Section 234ASection 246

234 A, B, and of the Act. In the present case, the appellant has claimed the the status of trust by virtue of its registration under Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. However, no details were provided either with the Return of Income before AO/CPC 5 Panchayti Dharamshala Kaseran Trust v. ITO or in appellate proceedings before the Ld. JCIT

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,143, GOMEZ DEFENCE COLONY, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 329/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 12ASection 13Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

234, and submitted that this is a case where the trust claims itself to be a charitable institution, but where its two trustees Dr. Pankah Gard and Smt. Vidushi Garg have acted for personal benefit, in drawing excessive salary, departing from the concept of “charitable” which, as per provisions of the Act, includes relief to the poor education, medical relief

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

ITA 328/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 12ASection 13Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

234, and submitted that this is a case where the trust claims itself to be a charitable institution, but where its two trustees Dr. Pankah Gard and Smt. Vidushi Garg have acted for personal benefit, in drawing excessive salary, departing from the concept of “charitable” which, as per provisions of the Act, includes relief to the poor education, medical relief

RAJASTHAN EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

ITA 563/JPR/2024[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jul 2024AY 2024-25
For Appellant: \n2. Ms.Ruchika Sogani, Advocate-ld.AR of the assessee
Section 10Section 11Section 8Section 80GSection 80G(5)

Trust v. CIT [1975] 101\nITR 234, the other in Indian Chamber of Commerce v. CIT [1975]\n101 ITR 796 and the third in Addl. CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth\nManufacturers Association [1980] 121 ITR l/[1980] 2 Taxman 501,\nwhere the speech made by the Finance Minister, while introducing the\nexclusionary clause in section

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 143(3)

Trust, 101 ITR 234, was referred. The same is restricted to Section 2(15) of the Act, which is applicable for charitable

PATHEYA KAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 583/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh,Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)

234 The word "education" has not been used in that wide and extended sense, according to which every acquisition of further knowledge constitutes education. According to this wide and extended sense, travelling is education, because as a result of travelling you acquire fresh knowledge. Likewise, if you read newspapers and magazines, see pictures, visit artgalleries, museums and zoos, you thereby

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agrarwal ( C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT)a fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 145Section 199Section 25

charitable trust and a section 25 company of the Companies Act.Hence, it suggest that the learned AO has completely misunderstood the transaction and its purpose The assessee company prepares its financial statements as per the applicable accounting standards issued by ICAI and the books are audited by the Independent Chartered Accountancy firm, which is then supplementarily audited

ICG-IISU ALUMNAE ASSOCIATION-BANDHAN,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 923/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR (Thru:V.C.)
Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 254

234 that position of not meant for profit can be established only if mentioned in deed that assessee would conduct such activities on cost or nominal margin, as assessee failed to include such point in deed, same cannot be considered charitable. Assessee submitted in reply, that by any stretch of imagination library reading room's facilities are not commercial

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Charitable Trust [1987] 31 Taxman 335 /167 ITR 129\n(Raj.) wherein it was held as under:\n“The error envisaged by section 263 was not one which depended on\npossibility or the guess work but it should be actually an error either of\nfact or law. Unless the Commissioner categorically says that there was\nsome income from speculative business

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Charitable Trust [1987] 65 CTR (Raj.) 30 : [1987] 167 ITR 129 (Raj.) Thus it is clear that Assessing Officer has made enquiry but sufficiency of enquiry can be depend upon from person to person. The AO cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is the duty

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

234 (Kerala)/[2016] 240 Taxman 168 (Kerala)/[2016] 385 ITR 624 (Kerala)/[2016] 287 CTR 187 (Kerala) [22-03-2016] "18. On going through Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, what we find is that if the authority specified therein has reason to believe that any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

234\nTaxman 771(SC) and even a statement u/s 132(4) shall also constitute\nincriminating material to dislodge any earlier finding for the purpose of making an\nassessment u/s 153A.\nIn the context of section 153C, the use of the expression books of accounts u/s\n1530 again suggests that even the entries recorded in the books of accounts,\nwhich have