PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

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)

c ) read with section 13(2)(a) of the Act in as much as payments have been diverted by the assessee trust for the benefit of interested persons specified in section 13(3) of the Act. Now the short question that arises for our consideration is as to whether the payments made by assessee trust to other two independent trusts

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

13. With effect from 01.07.2012, the legislature also introduced section 271H of the Act providing penalty for failure to furnish statements required to be filed under sub- section (3) of section 200 or under proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of section 271H in case of default to file

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

C) such allowance or accommodation to mutwalli is not hit by the provisions of Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 IV. For that the Ld. C.I.T.(A) grossly erred both in law and in fact in confirming addition of Rs.14,11,200/- as deemed income on the alleged ground that provisions

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

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

C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-II, Kolkata,….....................Respondent & I.T.A. No. 396/KOL/ 2014 Assessment year : 2006-2007 Harsh Vardhan Charity Trust,................…….........................Appellant 90/31, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-700 038 [PAN : AAATH 1762 N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer (Exemption)-II, Kolkata,….....................Respondent Appearances by: Smt. Nilima Joshi, FCA, for the assessees Shri Subhrajoti Bhattacharyay, JCIT, Sr. D.R., for the Department Date

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

c) although Dr M Ghosh is a person covered under section 13(3)(d). 5.3 These facts have been examined by CCIT-Kol-III while according approval to the assessee under section 10(23C)(vi). This approval was granted after the report of DDIT(E), JDIIT(E) and DIT(E). This approval was granted before the AO completed the assessment

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

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

3 Sandipani Charitable Trust, Taparia Estate, 5,00,000 Airport Road, Lalghata, Bhopal (MP) 4 Seacom Marine College, No11, Kendua Main 5,00,000 Road, Baishnabghata, Garia, Kolkata-700 084 5 Baidehi Seba Manch, 2A/3, Ghosh Bagan Lane, 10,000 P.O. Cossipure, Kolkata-700002(WB) 11-12 1 Batanagar Education and Research Trust, 1/1/1, 5,00,000 Jodhpur Park, Kolkata

JAGANNATH GUPTA FAMILY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini

13 to 30 of the paper book was recorded on oath and the said Shri Krishna Kumar Gupta deposed his statement voluntarily. In support of his contention referred to pages 18, 19 and 28 and he supported the impugned order of the CIT(E) in cancelling the registration u/s. 12AA(3) of the Act. The Ld.DR submits that the decisions

GOLDEN SAND TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

13. The Ld. AR submitted that sec. 12AA(3) of the Act permitted the CIT(E) to pass an order cancelling registration of a trust only when he satisfied that the activities of a Charitable trust are not genuine or they are not carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust. It is only when either

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]

C No. 6756/2009 (from the judgment and order dated 29.01.2008 in ITA NO. 763/2007 of High Court of Calcutta).In the case of DCIT vs. Kolkata Port Trust in ITA No. 453/Kol/2018, CO No. 60/KOl/2018, the coordinate has also decided the issue in the same manner after following the above decisions. 9. The Ld. A.R also submitted by referring