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.

38 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka459Delhi435Mumbai303Chennai141Bangalore141Jaipur71Ahmedabad69Hyderabad65Chandigarh64Pune51Kolkata38Lucknow38Cochin20Allahabad17Calcutta16Indore15Nagpur15Visakhapatnam14Agra12Cuttack9Patna8Rajkot8Raipur7Amritsar7Surat7Telangana7Varanasi7Kerala5Rajasthan3SC3Panaji2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Jodhpur1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 12A48Section 143(3)28Section 1128Section 80G27Section 26326Exemption23Section 1020Section 14A19Addition to Income19

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)

section 11(4A) of the Act has to be considered in the context of difference between property held in favour of assessee-trust and profit arisen to assessee-trust out of business. This Sec. 11(4A) of the Act is not applicable in the instant case as the property is held in assessee-trust. The GA was always a part

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

Section 143(1)17
Deduction14
Disallowance12
ITA 257/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agrwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, DR
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

charitable activities is in contravention of section 11(1)(d) of the Act although the corpus fund was utilized in terms of Para 5(i) of the Trust Deed dated 14.01.1978. As a matter of fact, the said Trust deed was approved at the time of granting registration under section 12AA and 80G of the Act. 5. That the appellant

PATTON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 261/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Patton International Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., C/O Jain Vinod K & Income-Tax, Kolkata-1. Associates, 41A, A. J. C. Vs Bose Road, Diamond . Prestige Nirman, 6Th Floor, Suite No.613, Kolkata- 700017 (Pan: Aabcp7901M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amitava Bhattacharyya, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 80G

Charitable Trust for which it was alleged that no certificate u/s. 80G and payment proof is found in the assessment record, Ld. Counsel referred to the relevant documents placed in the paper book. 3.2. In respect of Swarnim Foundation, certificate issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax (exemption), Kolkata u/s. 80G(5)(vi) of the Act has given an approval

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

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

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

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

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

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

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

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

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 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

68,57,615/- on account of ICDS adjustment. iii) Addition of Rs. 26,23,800/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. iv) Addition of Rs. 3,24,18,037/- u/s 35(2)(ab) of the Act. v) Addition of Rs. 1,10,55,000/- deduction u/s Chapter VIA i.e. 80G vi) Addition of Rs. 2,01,35,978/- by declining

M/S S.KANEHIALALL LOHIA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 142(1)

section the income which is to be taken for purpose of accumulation is the income derived by the trust from property. If both the decisions are carefully read, it becomes evident that any expenditure which is in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account. Having found that trust is entitled to exemption under

M/S S.KANEHIALALL LOHIA TRUST,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 142(1)

section the income which is to be taken for purpose of accumulation is the income derived by the trust from property. If both the decisions are carefully read, it becomes evident that any expenditure which is in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account. Having found that trust is entitled to exemption under

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 723/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

Trust vs ITO reported in (2016) 68 taxmann.com 250 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) dated 22.2.2016. c) Decision of Cochin Tribunal in the case of SNDP Yogam vs Asst DIT (Exemption) reported in ( 2016) 161 ITD 1 (Coch-Trib.) dated 1.3.2016. d) Decision of Amritsar Tribunal in the case of St.Jude’s Convent School vs ACIT reported in (2017) 164 ITD 594 (Amritsar

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KOLKATA vs. J.C.I.T RANGE - 50,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 724/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 723 & 724/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- C.I.T.-Xvii, Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 523 & 524/Kol/2013 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority -Vs- J.C.I.T., Kolkata [Pan: Aaalk 0714 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel Of Assessee For The Respondent : Shri Anand R. Baiwar, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel of AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Anand R. Baiwar, CIT
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

Trust vs ITO reported in (2016) 68 taxmann.com 250 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) dated 22.2.2016. c) Decision of Cochin Tribunal in the case of SNDP Yogam vs Asst DIT (Exemption) reported in ( 2016) 161 ITD 1 (Coch-Trib.) dated 1.3.2016. d) Decision of Amritsar Tribunal in the case of St.Jude’s Convent School vs ACIT reported in (2017) 164 ITD 594 (Amritsar

DCIT EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA vs. B P PODDAR FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 637/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.637/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year. : 2022-2023) Dcit Exemptions Circle-1(1), Vs B P Poddar Foundation For Education, Kolkata 18, Poddar Court, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700071 Pan No. :Aaatb 5418 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiayn, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.12.2024, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-9, Mumbai For A.Y.2022- 2023. 2. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue & Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 26 Days For Which The Revenue Has Filed The Necessary Condonation Petition. The Reasons Given Are Plausible & Same Are Accepted. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 4. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Ar Has Filed His Written Submission Which Read As Under :- Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata "A" Bench. Kolkata.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiayn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Charitable Trust. For the year under appeal being the A.Y. 2022-23, the trust also obtained provisional approval under section 10(23C)(via) vide Form 10AC dated 30/09/2021 for A.V.s 2022-23 to 2024-25. 2.2. The Assesee-Trust for the said A.Y.2022-23 filed its ROI on 04/11/2022 but while preparing its Income Tax Return and the related documents

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

ITO, (E) -II, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DEBI KAMAL ESTATE TRUST, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue on ground No

ITA 862/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.862/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2004-05) Ito(E)-Ii Vs. Debi Kamal Estate Trust, Kolkata 5Th , 10B, 7, Queens Park, Middleton Row, Kolkata-700020 Kolkata-700071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaatd 7600 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Animesh Mukherjee, FCA &For Respondent: Shri R.P.Nag, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated, 09.07.2009 2 Co.No.68/Kol/2013 Debi Kamal Estate Trust 2. Brief facts of the case qua the assessee are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2004-05 on dated 31.03.2005 declaring total income at Nil. The Return of income

SREEMA MAHILA SAMITY,NADIA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-NADIA, NADIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2826/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2017AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: S/Shri K.M. Roy &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2

68,803/- and Rs.38,27,197/- made on account of income from micro finance and provision for doubtful debts respectively. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable institution and declared total income as Nil. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the 1 Act was issued. In response to which, an AR appeared from time

M/S INTEGRATED EDUCATION RESEARCH CENTRE FOR ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT,KOLKATA vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal is allowed while the stay application is dismissed

ITA 620/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.S.M.Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Snehotpal Datta, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35(2)(iv)

Charitable Trust (supra) were neither referred to nor discussed. Further, although the name of Escorts Ltd. (supra) was mentioned in the list of cases referred to, not a single line of discussion was made on this case in the body of the order. The detail of the order of the Apex Court was not brought to the attention

KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. C.I,T ,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and for statistical purpose

ITA 778/KOL/2013[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2020AY 2012-2013

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

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

68,88,500 Rs.27,75,400 5. According to Ld. AR, these donations received by the assessee society was exclusively utilised for the purpose of expansion of the assessee’s charitable object as evident from audited accounts of FY 2011-12 and drew our attention to Schedule “Fixed Assets” and contended that it is evident from the same that

KALYAN EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KOLKATA vs. C.I,T ,DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and for statistical purpose

ITA 779/KOL/2013[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2020AY 2012-2013

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

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

68,88,500 Rs.27,75,400 5. According to Ld. AR, these donations received by the assessee society was exclusively utilised for the purpose of expansion of the assessee’s charitable object as evident from audited accounts of FY 2011-12 and drew our attention to Schedule “Fixed Assets” and contended that it is evident from the same that