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.

41 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 64clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka454Delhi394Mumbai218Chennai128Bangalore119Jaipur89Ahmedabad65Hyderabad62Chandigarh49Pune43Kolkata41Cochin30Lucknow27Visakhapatnam24Cuttack22Calcutta16Allahabad12Indore10Agra9Rajkot9Telangana9SC7Nagpur6Surat5Raipur5Varanasi4Patna3Amritsar3Ranchi2Rajasthan2Jodhpur2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 12A41Section 1132Section 80G23Section 143(1)19Exemption16Section 14A15Addition to Income13Section 80I10Section 14810

PANCHI BIBI WAKF ESTATE,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (E)-II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 1198/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 11Section 13(1)(C)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

charitable institution entitled to claim exemption under section 11(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, till the assessment year 1983-84. The assessee had computed its net profit from kury business at Rs.2,64,939 and deducted the amount spent on charity, scholarships, etc., from the ITA No.1193-1198/Kol/2012 A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2008-09 Panchi Bibi Wakf Estate

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

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

Disallowance10
Deduction10
Section 143(3)9

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

ITA 2456/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

64,030/-. In this context a question which was put up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, whether the quantum of deduction u/s 801A has to be restricted by treating 'eligible business' as the only source of income' or whether it can be allowed against any source even other than business income, and Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

ITA 2458/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

64,030/-. In this context a question which was put up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, whether the quantum of deduction u/s 801A has to be restricted by treating 'eligible business' as the only source of income' or whether it can be allowed against any source even other than business income, and Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

ITA 2459/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

64,030/-. In this context a question which was put up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, whether the quantum of deduction u/s 801A has to be restricted by treating 'eligible business' as the only source of income' or whether it can be allowed against any source even other than business income, and Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

ITA 2034/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

64,030/-. In this context a question which was put up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, whether the quantum of deduction u/s 801A has to be restricted by treating 'eligible business' as the only source of income' or whether it can be allowed against any source even other than business income, and Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

ITA 2457/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(2)(ab)Section 37Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

64,030/-. In this context a question which was put up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, whether the quantum of deduction u/s 801A has to be restricted by treating 'eligible business' as the only source of income' or whether it can be allowed against any source even other than business income, and Hon'ble Supreme Court

INDIAN LEATHER TECHNOLOGISTS' ASSOCIATION,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1634/KOL/2017[-----]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

64,952/- in AY 2007-08, totaling to Rs.61,23,380/- which have been carried forward to AY 2015-16. However, according to Ld. CIT(E), in the case of charitable trusts the concept of brought forward losses do not exist. He, therefore, following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Harprasad

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

ITA 1579/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

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)

For Appellant: Shri Nicholas Murmu, Addl. CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Roy, FCA
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(2)(a)Section 13(3)Section 13(3)(cc)Section 143(3)

64,35,040/- and to M/s Lok Kendra Trust of Rs 47,03,542/- and Rs 4,05,794/- for registration and other expenses. It was explained that these are two independent trusts existing for the benefit of the society at large having charitable objects. The ld AO show caused the assessee as to why the said payment of advances

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

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

ITA 489/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2005-2006

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 148Section 148(1)Section 249(4)

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1463/KOL/2017[--------------]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018

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)

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(vi)

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 2561 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or is a University established by law, or is any other educational institution recognised by the Government

DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. KARMAPA CHARITABLE TRUST,

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 953/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: The Tribunal Is Condoned & We Proceed To Hear The Appeal On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT –DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 144

Charitable Trust. PAN: AABTK8032B Dharma Chakra Centre Rumtek, East Sikkim … Respondent Assessee For the Appellant Revenue : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT –DR For the Respondent Assessee : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.AR Date of hearing : 18-10-2017 Date of pronouncement : 10-01-2018 ORDER ShriS.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM: This appeal by the Revenue against the order dt. 30-03-2015 passed

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 13. Everything else- is but mere discourse and debate only. Thus, the disputed exclusion from the gross receipts and as not being application of income – is hereby Deleted – on law, as also on facts.” We have gone through the order of ld CIT(A) and noticed that advertisement expenses claimed by assessee is normal and expected for a school

BANSAL FOUNDATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), EXEMPTION, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2235/KOL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2235/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-2023 Bansal Foundation,………………………...……Appellant White House, 3Rd Floor, 119, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 [Pan:Aadtb0630J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………....Respondent Ward-1(2), (Exemption), 10B, Middleton Road, Kolkata-700071

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act, in its ROI for the A.Y. 2022-23 at Nil after claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act which has resulted into an arbitrary and uncalled for demand of Rs. 10,39,390/- upon the trust. (2) That, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in having denied exemption

M/S CALCUTTA CRICKET & FOOTBALL CLUB,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 466/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 466/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club -Vs.- I.T.O., Exemption-I, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccc 6337 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate & Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Advocate &For Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 25Section 263

64,59,364/- and the same was under assessed. On the basis of above observation, it is found that the order passed u/s. 143(3) come Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, and as such posed to initiate proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, 1961 for cancelling the original assessment order

M/S GAAT FOUNDATION,MURSHIDABAD vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2194/KOL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Aug 2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 2194 & 2215/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Gaat Foundation, Murshidabad -Vs- Cit(E), Kolkata [Pan: Aabtg 6729 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 80G

section 80G of the Act , passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) [ in short the ld CIT(E)] dated 26.9.2016. 2. The assessee trust came into existence vide deed of trust dated 30.9.2011 for imparting education to the persons belonging to the backward classes , the scheduled caste and the scheduled tribes , to become fruitful citizens of mother India

JAMSHED ALI MOLLA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-30, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2233/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 2233/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jamshed Ali Molla -Vs- Dcit, Circle-30, Kolkata [Pan: Aevpm 4145 H ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)

section 143(3) / 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 21.07.2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The only effective issue involved in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in confirming the disallowance of capital loss of Rs 78,60,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the case

JERMEL'S ACCADEMY,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(4), , SILIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the directions mentioned above

ITA 1652/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(A)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

64 taxmann.com 330 (Kolkata - Trib.)/[2015] 44 ITR(T) 678 (Kolkata - Trib.)/[2016] 156 ITD 646 (Kolkata - Trib.)[09-10-2015] Page 9 of 13 I.T.A. No.: 1652/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jermel's Accademy. iv) Annadaneshwara Charitable Trust vs. Income-tax Officer [2023] 156 taxmann.com 270 (Bangalore - Trib.)/[2023] 203 ITD 641 (Bangalore - Trib

FATHER LEBLOND TRUST,DARJEELING vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1577/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

64,571/- by making additions for the A.Y. 2019-20. Therefore, the Intimation us. 143.1 and related Rectification order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY. 2019-20 is illegal, arbitrary and devoid of natural justice. 3. For that on the facts and in circumstances of the case the impugned Appeal Order passed

I.T.O.(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. CAMELLIA EDUCARE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 646/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)

section according to which no adjustment shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee for the adjustment proposed to be made. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Trust registered u/s. 12AA of the Act. Assessee is running an educational institution in the name of Camellia School of Engineering & Technology at Nadibhag, Post

APEEJAY EDUCATION TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T.(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)

Charitable Trust Rs. 30,00,000/- (refer page 33 of paper book) (iii) M/s. Apeejay Trust Rs.35,00,000/- (refer page 34 of paper book) Total Rs.2,40,00,000/- 6.2. From a perusal of the aforesaid pages (page 32-34 of paper book), we note that the donors/Trusts/entities have paid the amount by the mode of RTGS/cheque the details