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

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)

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)(a) read with section 13(3) of the Act and that the payments were made

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]

E) reported in (2013) 40 taxmann.com 207 (Mumbai-Trib) dated 23.10.2013 wherein the facts before the Mumbai Tribunal are as below:- “The assessee a club was engaged in encouraging and promoting sports, pastimes and athletics and social contract amongst its member assessee was registered as a charitable trust, falling in the category of ‘advancement of any other objects of general

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

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

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 u/s. 143(3). 5.4 After the completion of assessment, the AO made a proposal to DIT(E) for cancellation of registration u/s. 12A. the DIT(E) after considering the submissions

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

E R These six appeals filed by the six assessees are directed against six separate orders, all dated 02.12.2013 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Kolkata and since the issues involved therein are similar, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience

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

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

3)of the Act for the AYs 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 which are enclosed on pages 49 to 60 of the paper book. 4. Ballaram Hanumandas Charitable Trust, Kolkata (BHCT) founded in the year 1977, headed by Shri Hari Krishna Chaudhary, is a CSR project of Vikram-Pratibha Group of Industries. The Trust has been set up with

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

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

3) again says that if any income referred to in sub-section (2) is applied to purposes other than charitable or religious purposes as aforesaid or ceases to be accumulated or set apart for application thereto, or ceases to remain invested or deposited in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5), or is not utilised

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 work was done by the assessee by giving donations; (vii) the activities of the assessee were not genuine or were not carried

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]

trust are hit by proviso to section 2(15) read with Section 13(8) of the Act and therefore the exemption u/s 11 of the Act would not be available to the assessee as the activities of organizing meetings, conferences and various seminars constituted business activity and also the fact that the receipt of assessee from these activities exceeded