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.

467 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 35(2)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka467Delhi345Mumbai275Bangalore205Chennai103Jaipur89Ahmedabad79Hyderabad73Chandigarh55Kolkata54Pune45Cochin35Lucknow32Indore17Calcutta17Cuttack16Visakhapatnam15Agra12Rajkot12Telangana7Varanasi6Raipur6Kerala5Nagpur5Amritsar5Jodhpur4SC4Dehradun4Patna3Rajasthan3Surat3Allahabad3Andhra Pradesh2Orissa1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income46Section 2609Section 322Section 148A2

PASCHIM VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL BIJAGARI vs. THE COMMISSIONER and APPELLATE AUTHORITY

WP/101436/2018HC Karnataka01 Dec 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.101436/2018 (S-Pro) C/W. Writ Petition No.77680/2013 (Gm-Ksr), Writ Petition No.81667/2013 (Gm-R/C) & Writ Petition No.101972/2017 (Gm-R/C)

charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 mentioned in the latter part of the definition clause of Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 by itself will not get the status of “public trust” within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 unless it receives

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17370/2012HC Karnataka02 Jan 2013

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

IV of the old Act. I have perused both the chapters, and in my opinion, it cannot be stated that insertion of Chapter VIII in the new Act even remotely suggests different intention. In other words, no different intention on the basis of Chapter VIII of the new Act appears so as to exclude application of section

Showing 1–20 of 467 · Page 1 of 24

...

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/15910/2022HC Karnataka28 Oct 2022

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)

charitable entity belonging to the Azim Premji Group, to 4 be held as a part of the corpus of Trust. This gift was contemporaneously disclosed to the stock exchanges and this information was also disseminated to the public at large. This gift was also specifically disclosed in the audited accounts of the petitioner for the year ending 31.03.2014. The face

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

ITA/384/2016HC Karnataka28 Jun 2016

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 260Section 263

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the 12 affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/62/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/431/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/414/2010HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/430/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/56/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/233/2013HC Karnataka22 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 260

Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department.” 18. The Judgment in Escorts Limited (supra) was rendered by the Apex Court in the context of Section 10(2)(vi) and Section 10(2

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

ITA/306/2015HC Karnataka14 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 260Section 28Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

35(2)(iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under section 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions? 2. Whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

WP/39434/2013HC Karnataka03 Aug 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

Section 1Section 2(1)

charitable. An educational institution cannot charge such fees as are not required for the purpose of fulfilling that object. In view of the said decision, the petitioners have charged only for paying the salary, etc. to the teachers and not for paying the gratuity. 27 17. Relying on the Apex Court judgment in case of COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION

ITA/317/2014HC Karnataka14 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260Section 32Section 35

35 (2) (iv) is allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation is allowable under Section 32 on the same asset and in the absence of clear statutory indication to the contrary, the statute should not be read as to permit an assessee two deductions? 3. Whether, the tribunal was correct in not following the decision

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/25841/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/26589/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/23541/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/16939/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/10243/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/18788/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT