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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

charitable even if an incidental or ancillary activity or purpose, for achieving the main purpose was profitable in nature. Hence, assessee is not hit by newly inserted proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. This issue of assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 17.1. In the impugned assessment yearalso , there is no change in facts

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]

2(15) of the Act and also the definition of “business” in relation to the said section amply revels that the theory of dominant purpose has always, all through the years, been upheld to be the determining factor laying down whether the Institution is Charitable in nature or not. Where the main object of the Institution was “charitable” in nature

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]

2(15) of the Act and also the definition of “business” in relation to the said section amply revels that the theory of dominant purpose has always, all through the years, been upheld to be the determining factor laying down whether the Institution is Charitable in nature or not. Where the main object of the Institution was “charitable” in nature

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]

2(15) of the Act and also the definition of “business” in relation to the said section amply revels that the theory of dominant purpose has always, all through the years, been upheld to be the determining factor laying down whether the Institution is Charitable in nature or not. Where the main object of the Institution was “charitable” in nature

THE INSTITUTE OF INDIAN FOUNDRYMEN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

charitable institution and is entitled to the exemption u/s. 11 on the ground that services rendered by the assessee trust as public utility services is very meager and, therefore, sec. 2(15) is not applicable. The relevant finding of the Tribunal reads as under: “5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that

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]

2(15) of the Act and also the definition of “business” in relation to the said section amply revels that the theory of dominant purpose has always, all through the years, been upheld to be the determining factor laying down whether the Institution is Charitable in nature or not. Where the main object of the Institution was “charitable” in nature

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]

charitable trust is not in violation of section 13(1)( c) of the Act as the said payment is not made for the benefit of any person either directly or indirectly referred to in section 13(3) of the Act. 5.3. The Learned AR argued that even assuming without conceding, that the donation paid by assessee trust to another trust

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]

charitable institution in the other year depending on the aggregate value of receipts from commercial activities. The position remains similar when the first and second provisos of section 2(15) get substituted by the new proviso introduced w.e.f. 1-4-2016 vide Finance Act, 2015, changing the cut-off benchmark as 20% of the total receipts instead of the fixed

ACIT(EXEMPTIONS), CIR-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HOOGHLY ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE SOCIETY, HOOGHLY

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

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1579/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Acit (Exemptions), Cir-1, Kolkata -Vs- Hooghly Engineering & Technology College Society [Pan: Aaah 2856 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

trusts existing for the benefit of the society at large having charitable objects. The ld AO show caused the assessee as to why the said payment of advances should not be treated as violation of provisions of section 13 of the Act. The assessee replied that it had not violated the provisions of section 13(2

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

charitable purposes. From the above we find that it is not disputed that the business undertaking of the assessee is held under trust and it is for the attainment of the objects of the trust. The assessee has maintained its books of accounts as a whole and got them duly audited. Since the business of the assessee is held under

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]

Charitable Trusts under Section 80G as the Trust were approved under section 80G(5)(vi) by the Commissioner of Income Tax, in this behalf. Neither there is any express provision nor any of the explanations present under Section 80G, prohibits the assesse to claim the amount made towards donation as deduction under Chapter VIA, even if the same has been

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

Charitable Trusts wherein the trustees were ‘related persons’ as envisaged in the provisions of section 13(2) of the Income

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 :-

section 11(2) the said entire amount of Rs. 55,000 will get exempted from the tax net. 3 ITA No. 499/Kol/2019; M/s. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club M/s. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club 13. We may also at this stage mention that the Kerala High Court in H.H. Marthanda We may also at this stage mention that the Kerala High Court

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

Charitable Trust Vs. CIT(Ex) Kol. Page 13 2. The assessee during the year 2013-14 has received donation worth of Rs. 7,71,02,000.00 only from 172 parties as evident from the details enclosed on pages 21 to 32 of the paper book. The ld. CIT(ex) has not doubted on the genuineness of other donation except from

ACIT(E), CIR -1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WEST BENGAL TRANSPORT WORKERS SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Raviacit(E), Vs West Bengal Transport Workers Circle-1, 5Th Floor, Social Security Scheme, 10B, Middleton Row, 6, Church Lane, 4Th Floor, Kolkata-700071. Kolkata-700001. Pan-Aaalw0133G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh.S.M.Surana, Advocate Date Of Hearing 29.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2019 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.04.2016 Passed By Cit(A)-25, Kolkata For Ay 2011-12 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”).

13 onwards, I consider to also state that - section 12A/12AA is not applicable at all to the appellant. The Sections 11, 12, 12A, 12AA concern only charitable and religious trust/institutions. The Scheme is not a charitable or religious trust/institution. It is a social security Scheme of the Government. It is out of abundant caution again that the Scheme had applied

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. CIT, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviasansol Durgapur V/S. Commissioner Of Development Authority Income Tax, 1St Administrative Durgapur, Urmila Building, City Center, Bhawan, City Center Durgapur, West Bengal [Pan No.Aaala 0733G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

trust being vitiated insofar as their character of 'charitable activities' is concerned, is inbuilt in the provisions of Section 13(8) which was brought into effect with effect from the same point of time when proviso to Section 2

I.T.O(E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. FUTURE EDUCATION RESCARCH TRUST., KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & C.O.No.69/Kol/2013 (A/O Ita No.1031/Kol/2013) Assessment Year:2009-10

13(l)(d), maximum marginal rate of tax under Section 164(2), proviso is applicable only to that part of income of the Trust which has forfeited exemption and not the entire income. Relevant paragraph reads as under: Sec. 164(2) refers to the relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chowdhury

trust money; (iii) trustees of the assessee received cash or benefitted from the donations; (iv) section 13(1) or section 13(2) was applicable; (v) the assessee misused the provisions ofsections12AA and 80G(5)(vi); (vi) no charitable