THE INSTITUTE OF INDIA FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),EXEMPT, KOLKATA., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), EXEMPT, KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

c ) Fees for Certificate of origin Facts relating to these activities are discussed in detail in para 23 to 25 of this order above, which need not be repeated. 36. From facts in entirety, now the question arises is whether principle of consistency will apply or not? From AY 1985-86 to 2007-08 exemption u/s 11

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

1) of the Act 15% of the gross receipts/income is retained /accumulated or set apart by a charitable organization without applying the same for charitable purposes in which the income/receipts was accrued and thus this accumulation is indefinite accumulation and the organization does not have to apply it for charitable purposes in subsequent years and the same is retained

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

1) of the Act 15% of the gross receipts/income is retained /accumulated or set apart by a charitable organization without applying the same for charitable purposes in which the income/receipts was accrued and thus this accumulation is indefinite accumulation and the organization does not have to apply it for charitable purposes in subsequent years and the same is retained

M/S. CALCUTTA CRICKET & FOOTBALL CLUB,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(1). KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble) [Virtual Court Hearing] M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club......................................................................……....….....Appellant 10B, Middleton Row Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aaccc 6337 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption – Ward(1), Kolkata…………….....................….…....…… Respondent Appearances By: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Supriyo Pal, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 13Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 5Th, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

C’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’ble Accountant Member & Sri Sanjay Garg, Hon’ble Judicial Member) [VIRTUAL COURT HEARING] M/s. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club......................................................................……....….....Appellant 10B, Middleton Row Kolkata – 700 071 [PAN : AACCC 6337 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption – Ward(1), Kolkata…………….....................….…....…… Respondent Appearances by: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, appeared

LAKSHMI TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (E) - II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are treated as partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 382/KOL/ 2014 Assessment year : 2006-2007 Lakshmi Trust,...........................................…….........................Appellant 90/31, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-700 038 [PAN : AAATL 2461 L] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-II, Kolkata,….....................Respondent & I.T.A. No. 383/KOL/ 2014 Assessment year : 2006-2007 Kishore Kanti Khandelwal

ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT CHANDANNAGAR EDUCATINAL SOCITY.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD), CIR- 2,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

11 of the Act for the whole of its income or only to the extent of violation of section 13(1)(c ) of the Act. We proceed to answer the issues one by one. 5.1. First, the donation given by one trust to another trust is to be construed only as an application of income. The Charitable

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

c) M/s. St. Joseph’s Monastery, ITA No. 840.2018 AY 2013-14 7. We have heard the rival submissions and also gone through the written submissions filed. In order to address the controversy, it is imperative to refer to provisions of sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(d) of the I. T. Act, 1961, which are reproduced as under

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 11(4A) of the Act has to be considered in the context of difference between property held in favour of assessee-trust and profit arisen to assessee-trust out of business. This Sec. 11(4A) of the Act is not applicable in the instant case as the property is held in assessee-trust. The GA was always a part

LOTUS CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. DIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

c) For that the Ld. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) further erred in holding that the activities of the Trust cannot be categorized under the limb of "medical relief' within the meaning of the provision of Section 2(15) of the Act. 3) For that the Ld. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in holding that term medical relief

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

c) where the application is made under item (A) of sub-clause (vi) of the said clause or the application is made under sub-clause (vi) of the said clause, as it stood immediately before its amendment vide the Finance Act, 2023, pass an order in writing provisionally registering the trust or institution for a period of three years from

M/S CREDAI BENGAL,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Years:2011-12

1(b) that where the property was given to the Sant Satguru, it was intended for the common purpose of furthering the objects of the Sant Satguru and the Central Council had the authority to manage the property. Clause 9 of the document stipulated that the properties would vest in the trust and cl. 25 provided that the trust shall

M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

C) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 08.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 22.07.2021 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Dinesh Aibor Jayal Sawkuie, CIT ORDER Per Shri A. T. Varkey, JM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. PCIT, Kolkata- 2, Kolkata dated 30.03.2021 passed u/s 263 of Income

BALLARAM HANUMANDAS CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOL., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13

C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant .. ""यथ"/Respondent अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCA & Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate Shri G. Hangshing, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 02-08-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-09-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant

DCIT, MIDDLETONTON ROW vs. BISHNUPUR PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTE, BISHNUPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

c. This resulted in unintended consequences of allowing exemption under section 11, 12 of the Act and sub-clause (iv)/(v)/(vi)/(via) of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Act will be available to the trusts where they furnish updated return of income. Accordingly, it is proposed to clarify that the exemption under section 11

ONKAR SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGICAL ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 2, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rakesh Mishra

C R Avenue Kolkata - 700012 [PAN: AAATO2116M] ….......................…...……………....Appellant vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Durgapur Aayakar Bhawan, Durgapur ..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Ms. Puja Somani, CA Department represented by : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das Date of concluding the hearing : July 10, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : August 26, 2024 ORDER Per Rakesh