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.

40 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka456Delhi389Mumbai236Chennai171Bangalore138Ahmedabad88Jaipur85Hyderabad73Chandigarh57Pune46Kolkata40Lucknow27Cuttack22Indore16Calcutta16Visakhapatnam15Amritsar15Agra14Allahabad14Cochin9Telangana9Rajkot8Varanasi7Surat5Jodhpur5Dehradun4Nagpur4Rajasthan2Guwahati2SC2Andhra Pradesh1Patna1Punjab & Haryana1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 234E90Section 200A48Section 1142Section 80G29Deduction25Section 14A24Section 26324Section 12A22Section 143(3)19Exemption

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

ITA 1695/KOL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(3)(b)Section 143(3)

69,620/- and taxed the same at maximum marginal rate. 4. On first appeal, the Learned CITA held that donations made by the assessee trust to another registered trust is a transaction falling under the ambit of section 13(3)(b) of the Act. He held that according to section 13(3)(b) of the Act, any person

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

16
TDS12
Addition to Income12

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA

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

ITA 933/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

69,613/-, the revenue of Rs.2,06,23,114/- was the receipt from the members of the Appellant Association, which is not chargeable to tax on the ground of mutuality. 4. That the major part of the income/receipt by way of rent and interest are being the revenues coming from the permitted accumulations of past and, therefore, do not amount

INDIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-1(1), (EXEMPTION), KOLKATA. , KOLKATA

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

ITA 934/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpalyadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

69,613/-, the revenue of Rs.2,06,23,114/- was the receipt from the members of the Appellant Association, which is not chargeable to tax on the ground of mutuality. 4. That the major part of the income/receipt by way of rent and interest are being the revenues coming from the permitted accumulations of past and, therefore, do not amount

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

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

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

DDIT (EXEMPTIONS)-I/KOL, KOLKATA vs. DEVI KAMAL TRUST ESTATE, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 137/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri P.B.Pramanik, JCIT., Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Animesh Mukherjee, FCA &
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12A

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 wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income

D.D.I.T (E) - I,KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHREE SHREE MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1042/KOL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1042/Kol/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04 Ddte(E)-I, Kolkata Vs. Shree 5Th Floor, 10B Middleton Row, Mohananandabrahmachari Kolkata-700071 Medical Welfare Trust Ae-467, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 064. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts 0083 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Biswas,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Vigyaneshwarnathdatta, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2003-04, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals), Jalpaiguri, In Appeal No.763/Cit(A)-Xiv/11-12, Dated 06.03.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2011. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Biswas,ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri VigyaneshwarNathDatta, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254

charitable purposes after reducing a donation of Rs.9,69,846/- given to Sri SriMohanandaSamajSevaSamiti. The statutory accumulation of Rs.20,54,035/- (@15%) was also allowed. Against the original assessment U/s 143 (3), the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A), vide order dated 25..11.2009 deleted all these additions and directed Assessing Officer to allow exemption

SREE SREE MOHANANANDA BRAHMACHARI MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST,KOLKATA vs. DDIT(E)-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1333/KOL/2014[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1333/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2002-03 Sree Sree Mohanananda Vs. Ddit(E)-I, Kolkata Brahmachari Medical Welfare Trust 10B Middleton Row, Kolkata- Ae-467, Salt Lake City, 700071 Kolkata – 700 064 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadts 0083 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri M. K. Biswas,Acit Dr Respondent By :Shri Vigyaneshwarnathdatta, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2002-03, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Cit(Appeals)-Xiv, Kolkata, In Appeal No.762/Cit(A)-Xiv/2011-12, Dated 18.03.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 254/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.11.2011. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1.For That The Order Of Assessment Is Void Ab Initio, Bad In Law & Is Neither Tenable In Law Nor In Facts. 2.For That The Assessment Order Is Opposed To Requirement In Law & Without Jurisdiction. 3.For That The Assessment Is Made In Arbitrary, Violence Of Natural Justice, Without Application Of Mind & Not Tenable In Law. 4.For That The Order Of Authorities Below Is Grossly Unjustified In Disallowing The Claim Of Rs.54,83,854/- U/S 11(2) Of The Act. The Contention Of The Assessing Officer Is Neither Tenable In Law Nor In Facts.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Biswas,ACIT DRFor Respondent: Shri VigyaneshwarNathDatta, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 254

69,846/- in Shree Shree Mohanananda Brahmachari Medical Welfare Trust Assessment Year: 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04 to Shree ShreeMohananandaSamajSevaSamity and received donation of Rs.13,00,211 in A.Y. 2002-03, and Rs.15,15,114 in A.Y. 2003- 04 from said trust Shree ShreeMohananandaSamajSevaSamity having common trustees. The AO observed that giving and receiving funds between two trust having common

JHA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLKATA vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD - 1(1), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 320/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 10Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 148Section 80GSection 80G(5)

69,869/- on the ground that amendment made in Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) in section 11(5) of the Act is retrospective in operation/clarificatory and, therefore, not allowable. 3. Facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) is as under: “The assessee is a charitable trust

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

69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

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

69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

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

69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

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

69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

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

69), answered the question in favour of the assessee by holding that the deduction u/s 801A has to be allowed with reference to the gross total income' and not the 'business income' alone. Further Reliance in this regard is also placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of V.M. Salgaocar & Brother

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)

69,683/- after denying claim of exemption u/s 11 of the Act. 5. The ld CITA observed that the term ‘concern’ used in section 13(3) of the Act does not include the trusts. Accordingly, he held that the monies advanced by the assessee trust to other two trusts would not tantamount to payments made to specified persons defined

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

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

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

M/S MERINO PANEL PRODUCTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 922/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

69,25,000/- after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 04. The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the ld. PCIT invalidly exercise the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin conditions as envisaged in Section 263 of the Act i.e. the order has to be erroneous

M/S MERINO INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 923/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2, M/S Merino Panel Products Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm5672Q Pcit-2, M/S Merino Industries Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Chowringhee 5, Alexandra Court, 601/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- Square, Kolkata-700069, Vs. 700020, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc9186C Assessee By : Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

69,25,000/- after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 04. The ld. AR of the assessee vehemently submitted before us that the ld. PCIT invalidly exercise the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act without satisfying the twin conditions as envisaged in Section 263 of the Act i.e. the order has to be erroneous

M/S. CALCUTTA CRICKET & FOOTBALL CLUB,KOLKATA vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(1). KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1105/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 25Section 263

69,870/- vide order dated 30.03.2015. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(E) in exercising powers u/s 263 of the Act was of the view that the order of the 2 I.T.A No. 1105/Kol/2017 M/s. Calcutta Cricket & Football Club Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the following reasons: “The assessment