ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. M.K. SHAH EXPORTS LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appealof the Revenue (ITA No

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1903/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. Vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1), Kolkata P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, 2/2. Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 020. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccm 0884 H (Assessee) .. (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1974/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. M. K. Shah Exports Ltd. A.C.I.T, Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs. P-7, Chowringhee Square, 8Th Floor, 2/2. Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 069. Kolkata – 700 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccm 0884 H (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By :Shrisaurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit (Sr. Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2018 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2018

Charitable Trust ( institution) has become taxable for any technical reason and also the Ld. AO did not mention that the certificate issued under section 80G(5)(v) has been cancelled by the Income Tax Department. Under these circumstances the deduction under section 80G of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee company.We also note that subsequent to the donation

DREAMLAND EDUCATION SOCIETY,HOOGHLY vs. ACIT, CIR-2, HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos. 489-495/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2011-12

trusts which had not changed its objectives and had carried on the same charitable objects in the past as well as in the current year based on which the registration u/s.12AA is granted by the DIT (Exemptions)." (emphasis supplied) 20. It was therefore submitted by him that the impugned order of CIT(A) should be set aside

SARLABEN BHANSALI CHARITIES TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

charitable trust. It filed its return for A.Y. 2009-10 on 11.10.2010 declaring NIL income. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and thereafter completed the 2 I.T.A. No. 663 & 76/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) & Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) determining the total income

SARLABEN BHANSALI CHARITIES TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT, (EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

charitable trust. It filed its return for A.Y. 2009-10 on 11.10.2010 declaring NIL income. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 and thereafter completed the 2 I.T.A. No. 663 & 76/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) & Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) determining the total income

INDRAVATI DEVI BAGRODIA CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1.1, EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

Charitable Public Trust reported in 174\ntaxmann.com 245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025.\n5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded\nwithin the due date, which is claimed to be unintentional on the part of the\nassessee. However, it is noted that the same was available before the Ld.\nAssessing Officer at the time

PARAMARTH SADHAK SANGH ,KOLKATA vs. ADIT(E) CIR -2/NOW ITO(EXEM), WARD - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Paramarth Sadhak Sangh……..………………....…………..……………...……..….…….........Appellant P-113, New Raipur Road (E) Kolkata – 700 084 [Pan : Aaatp 4767 F] Vs. Adit (E), Circle-2/ Now I.T.O. (Exem), Ward-14, Kolkata….……………............Respondent

Charitable Trust v. Union of India [1992] 193 ITR 95, the hon'ble Delhi High Court held that as per the provisions of section 143(1) (a) of the Act the Assessing Officer could allow or disallow only such claims which were admissible/inadmissible on the basis of the returns and documents accompanying the return. It was also held that

FOOTBALL PLAYER ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), EXEMPTION, , KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: the ITAT for the sake of convenience the grounds pertaining to ITA No. 414/Kol/2025 (AY 2018-19) are extracted for reference: “1. For that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the A.O (CPC) in assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,17,801/- against the returned income of Rs.63,510/- by denying the exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 11 of the Act on the ground that the Audit Report in Form 10B and the Ret

Charitable Public Trust reported in 174 taxmann.com 245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025. 5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded within the due date, which is claimed to be unintentional on the part of the assessee. However, it is noted that the same was available before the Ld. Assessing Officer at the time

FOOTBALL PLAYERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Charitable Public Trust reported in 174 taxmann.com 245 (Bombay), order dated 25.03.2025. 5. It is noted that in this case Form No.10B had not been uploaded within the due date, which is claimed to be unintentional on the part of the assessee. However, it is noted that the same was available before the Ld. Assessing Officer at the time

M/S DHAMEJA MINING,SIKKIM vs. ITO, WD-2(4), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

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

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Charitable Trust Vs WTO & Ors. (All) 222 ITR 523] b. Special Leave petition dismissed with speaking order is declaration of law by Supreme Court - After rejection of SLP, lower Courts can review its order - Once SLP is admitted, lower Courts have no jurisdiction to review the order [Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Anr. (SC) 245