BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

6 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 160clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka427Delhi163Mumbai87Ahmedabad57Bangalore50Chennai44Jaipur35Allahabad26Chandigarh23Pune17Calcutta16Visakhapatnam13Lucknow12Rajkot9Indore7Kolkata6Hyderabad4Jodhpur3Cuttack3Telangana3Patna3Nagpur2Cochin2SC2Raipur2Rajasthan2Agra1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 12A5Exemption5Section 114Section 143(3)3Section 11(1)(d)3Section 143(1)3Section 33Section 2(1)(a)3Section 11(1)(a)2

ITO(E), WD-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PANCHAJANYA TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1994/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Das, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 143(3)

section (6) could have retrospective application, judicial decisions have held that it cannot be interpreted so. The insertion is prospective w.e.f 01.04.2015. The ld Counsel submitted the following case laws:Indraprastha Cancer Society (ITA No. 240 of 2014) dated 18.11.2014 Delhi High Court; DIT (Exemption) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 160

Addition to Income2
Disallowance2

PANCHAJANYA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1(4), KOKLATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1841/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1841/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Das, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12(1)Section 143(3)

section (6) could have retrospective application, judicial decisions have held that it cannot be interpreted so. The insertion is prospective w.e.f 01.04.2015. The ld Counsel submitted the following case laws:Indraprastha Cancer Society (ITA No. 240 of 2014) dated 18.11.2014 Delhi High Court; DIT (Exemption) vs. Al-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust (2016) 67 Taxmann.com 160

DCIT(EXAMPTION), CIRCLE - 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. MAA SARASWATI GYAN MANDIR EDUCATION SOCIETY , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2002/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2002/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit(Exemption), Circle- Vs. Maa Saraswati Gyan Mandir 1(1), Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)

section is not retrospective in effect which is evident from the amendment itself. The insertion is prospective w.e.f. 01.04.2015 as held by the Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indraprastha Cancer Society (ITA No. 240 of 2014) 18.11.2014 ( Delhi High court), and similar view were also upheld by the Hon`ble Karnataka High Court in the case

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

ITA 1406/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

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”).

Section 12Section 2(1)(a)Section 2(24)Section 2(31)Section 3

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes or by an association or institution referred to in clause (21) or clause (23), or by a fund or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or by any university or other educational institution referred to in sub-clause

PRADYUMNA DALMIA BENEFICIARY TRUST,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(CPC)/I.T.O., WARD - 33(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1613/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

Charitable Trust (2001) (247 ITR 1) iv) The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in L.R. Patel Family Trust vs. ITO (2003) (262 ITR 520) v) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. SAE Head Office Monthly Paid Employee Welfare Trust (2004) (271 ITR 159) 5. The assessee had claimed that the surcharge should be levied depending upon

M/S D. S. HEALTH & EDUCATION TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1209/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

Section 12ASection 133A

Section 12AA(3) is invoked and registration granted u/s. 12AA is withdrawn/cancelled w.e.f. 01.04.2010 from the starting of financial year, the year the society was found to be involved in money laundering through receipt of bogus donation, ingenuine activities and not carrying out activities as per object of the trust. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has come up in appeal