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” u/s. 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The trust duly applied for registration u/s. 12A of the IT Act of the Jha Educational Trust before the Director of Income Tax (Exemption) in conformity with rule 17A and submitted Form No. 10A together with other requisite documents. The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) after verification of documents

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 activity carried out by assessee. Therefore, the assessee has misused the provision of Section 12AA and 80G of the Act. ii) Assessee’s activities are suggesting as if it is engaged in converting cash into cheque which is illegal in nature. iii) Donation received is merely an accommodation entry and in fact the assessee is converting its own cash

ORIENTAL CHARITABLE FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18

charitable or religious purposes.— (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt of the income— [(a) income derived from property held under trust

M/S JMS MINING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Charitable Trusts under Section 80G as the Trust were approved under section 80G(5)(vi) by the Commissioner of Income Tax, in this behalf. Neither there is any express provision nor any of the explanations present under Section 80G, prohibits the assesse to claim the amount made towards donation as deduction under Chapter VIA, even if the same has been

SHREE RAM TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-1(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Trust Mhow v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 832 (MP). No reason whatsoever has been given by the Revenue authorities for deducting Rs. 2,17,126 in this case for purposes of section 11(1)(a). The decision cited on behalf of the Revenue did not take into account the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. The circular

JERMELS ACCADEMY,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP,, SILIGURI

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Trust which fall within the\ndefinition of charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the\nIncome Tax Act. The appellant has further claimed that the school which has\nbeen running since its inception, is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary\nEducation, approved by the education department of West Bengal\ngovernment, and presently catering to over 1500 students

ASANSOL DURGAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DURGAPUR vs. CIT, DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviasansol Durgapur V/S. Commissioner Of Development Authority Income Tax, 1St Administrative Durgapur, Urmila Building, City Center, Bhawan, City Center Durgapur, West Bengal [Pan No.Aaala 0733G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

charitable. 4. Facts in brief are that assessee-applicant is a Development Authority constituted u/s. 11 of the West Bengal Town and Country (Planning & Development) Act, 1979 and engaged in the activities of developing the public utilities. The assessee-trust upto including Assessment Year 2003-04 was claiming the exemption u/s. 10(20A) of the Act. However, the Section

JERMELS ACCADEMY ,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP, , SILIGURI

Trust which fall within the\ndefinition of charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the\nIncome Tax Act. The appellant has further claimed that the school which has\nbeen running since its inception, is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary\nEducation, approved by the education department of West Bengal\ngovernment, and presently catering to over 1500 students

JERMELS ACCADEMY,DARJEELING vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), EXEMP,, SILIGURI

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Assessee are partly\nallowed for statistical purposes

Trust which fall within the\ndefinition of charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the\nIncome Tax Act. The appellant has further claimed that the school which has\nbeen running since its inception, is affiliated to Central Board of Secondary\nEducation, approved by the education department of West Bengal\ngovernment, and presently catering to over 1500 students

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 ]

Trust at Rs.5,10,22,844. Sec.11 of the Act provides as follows: “Sec.11: Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60

PCBL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

60,96,048/- in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. However, since donation to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- qualified for specific deduction u/s 80G of the Act, it was separately claimed by way of deduction in the manner as prescribed therein i.e. 50% of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- being Rs.58

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

60,96,048/- in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. However, since donation to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- qualified for specific deduction u/s 80G of the Act, it was separately claimed by way of deduction in the manner as prescribed therein i.e. 50% of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- being Rs.58

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILIPS CARBON BLACK LTD , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

60,96,048/- in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. However, since donation to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- qualified for specific deduction u/s 80G of the Act, it was separately claimed by way of deduction in the manner as prescribed therein i.e. 50% of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- being Rs.58

PRAMOD LAKRA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

60,96,048/- in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. However, since donation to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- qualified for specific deduction u/s 80G of the Act, it was separately claimed by way of deduction in the manner as prescribed therein i.e. 50% of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- being Rs.58

PRAMOD LAKRA,DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

60,96,048/- in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) of the Act. However, since donation to the extent of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- qualified for specific deduction u/s 80G of the Act, it was separately claimed by way of deduction in the manner as prescribed therein i.e. 50% of Rs. 1,16,00,000/- being Rs.58

M/S. MOHANLAL MAHENDRA KUMAR PATNI CHARITABLE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1463/Kol/2017 Assessment Years : 2016-17 M/S Mohanlal Mahendra Kumar Patni. -Vs- Cit(E), Kolkata [Pan: Aaatm 8500 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

60[* * *] (v) the institution or fund is either constituted as a public charitable trust or is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India or under section

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

Trust, Society, Individual, Partnership firm or company. Here in the case of Dreamland Educational Society which derives excess of income over expenditure should reasonably be considered income under the head -' Income From Other Sources' under section 2(24(iia) read with section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.” 6 7 ITA Nos.489-495/Kol/2016 Dreamland Education Society A.Yrs

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

charitable purposes of the trust. The payments were routed through Dr M Ghosh because of practical reasons; the reasons being the sellers of property were either reluctant to sell property to trust or used to inflate prices if purchased in the name of trust. In one case, as the deal could not materialize, the entire amount was deposited back