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.

2 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 80Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai30Delhi3Jaipur2Indore1Hyderabad1Nagpur1Rajkot1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 119Section 80P5Section 1443Section 80A(2)3Section 143(3)2Section 2502Addition to Income2

PALAS GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO, SIKAR

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

ITA 1017/JPR/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2020-2021
For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gajendra Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 250Section 253(5)Section 80A(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

charitable trusts seeking registration\nunder the law.\nPrayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this application may kindly be allowed\nby condoning the delay, taking a sympathetic view, in the interest of justice.\n4. During the course of hearing, the Id. DR submitted that the reasons\nadvanced in the application are sufficient to condone the delay but at the\nsame

JAIPUR JEWELLERY SHOW,JAIPUR vs. ACIT-DCIT CIRCLE (EXEMP.), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 164/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 264

charitable activity being and advancement of object of general public utility, while the profit margin is meagre, the claim of exemption ought to be extended. 4.4 It is evident that the appellant had failed to comprehend the contents and principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of AUDA (supra). The Court had categorically said that when