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

charitable purpose. We also find that the notice for the cancellation of the registration certificate was issued u/s 12AA(3) of the Act as evident from the notice placed on page 12 of the paper book. However, Ld. CIT(Exemption) has also invoked the provisions of section ITA No.931-933/Kol/2016 Jha Educational Trust Vs. CIT (Ex) Kol. Page 17 12AA

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

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

6 9. The ld.AR argued that the assessee is conducting its affairs of Trust for the purpose of charitable and as such registration cannot be cancelled on the reason as set out by the CIT (E) in his show cause notice. In support of which, he relied on the decision dt:09-09-2014 of Hon’ble High Court

DR. B.G. MEMORIAL TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmeddr. B.G. Memorial Trust V/S. Cit (Exemption), 10B, Middleton Row, 6Th 6/1 Sarat Chatterjee Avenue, Kolkat-29 Floor, Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aaatd 5235 A]

charitable activities, may be a ground for refusing exemption only with respect to that part of the income but cannot be taken to be a synonym to the genuineness of the activities of the trust or the institution. It is significant to mention that registration under s. 12AA does not necessarily entitle the assessee to get the income excluded

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

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]

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

DDIT (EXEMPTIONS)-I/KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEVI KAMAL TRUST ESTATE, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

section 11(1)(a). The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court ruled that the said application of the income for charitable or religious purpose takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet the expenses incurred for charitable or religious purposes. In other words, even if the expenses for charity have been incurred in the earlier year

ITO, (E) -II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DEBI KAMAL ESTATE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue on ground No

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.862/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2004-05) Ito(E)-Ii Vs. Debi Kamal Estate Trust, Kolkata 5Th , 10B, 7, Queens Park, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700020 Kolkata-700071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 7600 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated, 09.07.2009 2 Co.No.68/Kol/2013 Debi Kamal Estate Trust 2. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2004-05 on dated 31.03.2005 declaring total income at Nil. The Return of income

SMT SHARMILLA BOSE,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-41(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1091/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Sharmilla Bose.............................………………………………………………Appellant 49A, Shyambazar Street, Kolkata - 700004 [Pan : Aajpb7004J] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 41(1), Kolkata, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Poddar Court, 4Th Floor, Kolkata- 700001. Appearances By: Shri S. Mitra, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Biswas, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 04, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 13, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 19.02.2006 & Although There Are 3 Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Has Pressed & Argued Only One Issue Raised In Ground No 1 Relating To The Disallowance Of 7,50,000/- Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit (A) On Account Of Disallowance Of Cost Of Services Paid To A.K. Ghosh & Co. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Carrying On The Business Of Marketing & Sales Agent. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Her On 29.10.2007 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 1,90,930/-. In The Profit & Loss

section 133(6) by the AO, he admitted that there was no formal agreement between him and the assessee for rendering such services. AO also found that the payment of Rs. 7,50,000/- was not made by the assessee directly to A.K. Ghosh & Co. and the said payment was made by two cheques

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

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]

133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection of any register referred to in section 134 or of any entry in such register or to allow copies of such register or of any entry therein to be taken; or (e) to furnish the return of income which he is required to furnish under

KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. C.I,T ,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and for statistical purpose

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

trust - Registration procedure (Grant of registration) - Assessee-society was formed with object of running a school - It filed an application seeking registration under section 12AA - Commissioner took a view that fee received from students and fee structure was not in sync with instruction issued by Central Board of School Education and, moreover, emphasis of society was mainly on creation