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]

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that since the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has categorically held that section 234E of the Act is a charging provision for the levy of fees for defaults in filing of TDS statement, the same could have been levied and, therefore, the action of the authorities below should

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]

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that since the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has categorically held that section 234E of the Act is a charging provision for the levy of fees for defaults in filing of TDS statement, the same could have been levied and, therefore, the action of the authorities below should

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]

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that since the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has categorically held that section 234E of the Act is a charging provision for the levy of fees for defaults in filing of TDS statement, the same could have been levied and, therefore, the action of the authorities below should

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]

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that since the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has categorically held that section 234E of the Act is a charging provision for the levy of fees for defaults in filing of TDS statement, the same could have been levied and, therefore, the action of the authorities below should

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]

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that since the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has categorically held that section 234E of the Act is a charging provision for the levy of fees for defaults in filing of TDS statement, the same could have been levied and, therefore, the action of the authorities below should

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]

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that since the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has categorically held that section 234E of the Act is a charging provision for the levy of fees for defaults in filing of TDS statement, the same could have been levied and, therefore, the action of the authorities below should

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]

4. Per contra, the Ld. DR for the Revenue submitted that since the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has categorically held that section 234E of the Act is a charging provision for the levy of fees for defaults in filing of TDS statement, the same could have been levied and, therefore, the action of the authorities below should

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]

4 Lotus Charitable Trust AY 2009-10 being in the nature of commerce and hit by the amended provision of section 2(15) of the Act. b) For that the Ld. Director of Income Tax (Exemption) erred in holding that the activities of the Trust/ Institution are not genuine and do not conform to the objective outlined in the Trust

ST JOSEPH'S CONVENT CHANDANNAGAR EDUCATINAL SOCITY.,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T. (OSD), CIR- 2,HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

trust to be charitable , assessee was entitled to exemption under section 4(3)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. (b) Decision

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

3. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer completely misconceived the facts of the case. 4. It is not in dispute that the assessee is a more than 25 year old public charitable trust and has been all along allowed exemption under section

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

section 143(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

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(4

SATYANARAYAN SOMANI FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.321/Kol/2024 Baijnath Somani Charitable Trust…......................…...……………....Appellant 5A, Woodburn Park Road, 3Rd Floor, Woodburn Central, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaatb5408K] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata….……………............................…..…..... Respondent

3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the record. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to reproduce here the relevant provisions of section 80G(5) of the Act: “80G(5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), only

BAIJNATHSOMANI CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CITIEXEMPTION), KOLKATA

The appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.321/Kol/2024 Baijnath Somani Charitable Trust…......................…...……………....Appellant 5A, Woodburn Park Road, 3Rd Floor, Woodburn Central, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaatb5408K] Vs. Cit(Exemption), Kolkata….……………............................…..…..... Respondent

3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the record. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to reproduce here the relevant provisions of section 80G(5) of the Act: “80G(5) This section applies to donations to any institution or fund referred to in sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (2), only

M/S. TEGA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

charitable trusts which have been approved under section 80G(6)(vi) and unlike sub-clauses (iiihk) and (iiihi), there is no restriction or prohibition set out in the said sub-clause denying deduction under section 80G for CSR contributions. [Para 13]” 7.2. It is further noticed that CSR expenditure is an obligation of the company specified in section

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

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

Trust 4 37. Sub-section (2) of section 11 states about a situation where eighty five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub-section is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during

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]

4. With the aforesaid observations, the Ld. CIT(E) was of the opinion that as per the provisions of sec. 12AA(3) of the Act, he has the authority to cancel the registration granted to a Trust if, in his opinion, activities of the trust were not genuine or he was satisfied that the activities of the trust were

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)

3 4 Hooghly Engineering & Technology College Society A.Yr. 2010-11 further observed that since the two independent trusts are not registered u/s 12AA of the Act, therefore Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Act is also not attracted . In any case, he held that the assessee trust had only paid advance and not donation. 5.1. With