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.

16 results for “charitable trust”+ Unexplained Cash Creditclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi151Mumbai67Chennai62Jaipur33Chandigarh20Ahmedabad19Lucknow16Pune16Cochin15Bangalore15Indore10Allahabad10Amritsar9Hyderabad9Kolkata8Agra6Nagpur4Cuttack3Raipur3Surat3Varanasi2Rajkot1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 6921Addition to Income14Natural Justice12Section 12A11Section 1110Undisclosed Income9Section 1488Section 80G8Section 80G(5)

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 181/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.181 & 182/Lkw/2024 A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 Rohilkhand Educational Vs. Dcit, Charitable Trust, Bareilly Central Circle, Bareilly Pan: Aaatr6902J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assesseeby: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. S.H. Usmani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: [ These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Dated 19.03.2024 & 22.03.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1).That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering The Fact That In The Alleged Assessment Order, The Columns Of Name Of Assessee, Pan, Asst Year, Date Of Assessment & Section Under Which Passed, Are Blank. (2)That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Treating The Demand As Valid Which Was Not Computed On The Basis Of Orderthat May Not Be Termed To Be An Order Under Section 143(3). (3) That A Demand Of Tax As Computed In The Computation Sheet Is Without Jurisdiction Void-Ab-Inito & Is Liable To Be Annulled. (4) That The Ld. Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 736591857/-Comprising  Corpus Donation Aggregating To Rs 7,68,95,000/-, A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11
8
Section 132A7
Section 133A7
Exemption7
Section 11(1)
Section 11(2)
Section 12A
Section 13(3)
Section 143(3)
Section 250
Section 80G
Section 80G(5)

charitable trust registered under section 12A and having recognition under section 80G(5) is also against law. 9. While passing order treating the Trust as business entity Ld. A. O. was under obligation to allow deduction under section 80G. However, no such deduction is allowed. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have erred

ROHILKHAND EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BAREILLY vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY

ITA 182/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80G(5)

charitable trust registered under section 12A and having recognition under section 80G(5) is also against law. 9. While passing order treating the Trust as business entity Ld. A. O. was under obligation to allow deduction under section 80G. However, no such deduction is allowed. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S SHRI RAMSWAROOP CHARITABLE TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 557/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

Section 11Section 32Section 68

unexplained credit. It was further argued that against the addition of Rs.8,57,31,152/- the assessee could produce ledger account and vouchers for Rs.7,69,08,761/- only. 6. As regards Ground No.4, the ld. DR stated that the Assessing Officer had made the disallowance on account of personal expenses as the assessee was not able to produce proper

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

unexplained cash credits during the course of the reassessment proceedings. The case of the donors travelled to the Honourable Income Tax Tribunal as under- 1. DCIT Vs M/s Anandilal& Ganesh Podar Society and Group Concerns ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals- Refer Annexure 2 Page 50 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

unexplained cash credits during the course of the reassessment proceedings. The case of the donors travelled to the Honourable Income Tax Tribunal as under- 1. DCIT Vs M/s Anandilal& Ganesh Podar Society and Group Concerns ITA NOs. 1791, 1790, 1792 & 1889/MUM/2021& Other appeals- Refer Annexure 2 Page 50 of 87 I.T.A. No.619 & 620/Lkw/2024 Assessment year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW vs. M/S BHAGWAT SARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BIJNOR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 475/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14

Section 11Section 40Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and which learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed. 2.2 Arguing ground No. 3 Learned D. R. submitted that assessee had received various amounts from various persons and on an explanation sought by the Assessing Officer regarding genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the persons, the assessee had failed to prove the same

TULSI GRAMODYOG SEWA SAMITI,,LUCKNOW vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 224/LKW/2022[00]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

credits amounting to Rs. 1,00,34,998/- were added u/s 68 of the J.T. Act, as unexplained income. ITA No.217 & 224/LKW/2022 Page 9 of 12 2. All the facts enumerated above prove that the assessee Trust never complied in true sprit with the requirements of the notices issued as well as show cause issued either in the earlier proceedings

TULSI GRAMODYOG SEWA SAMITI,LUCKNOW vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 217/LKW/2022[00]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

credits amounting to Rs. 1,00,34,998/- were added u/s 68 of the J.T. Act, as unexplained income. ITA No.217 & 224/LKW/2022 Page 9 of 12 2. All the facts enumerated above prove that the assessee Trust never complied in true sprit with the requirements of the notices issued as well as show cause issued either in the earlier proceedings

GURUKUL ARSH KANYA VIDHYAPEETH,NAJIBABAD, BIJNOR, UTTAR PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), BAREILY, BAREILY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 25/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2018-19 Gurukul Arsh Kanya Income Tax Officer V. Vidhyapeeth (Exemption) Gurukul Arsh Kanya C.R. Building, Kamla Vidhyapeeth, Kotwali Road, Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Near Shravanpur Nahar Bareily-243001. Najibabad, Bijnor-246763. Pan:Aabtg6651N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 17 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and taxing the same as per section 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the Law, the Ld. AO had grossly erred by not allowing revenue and capital expenditure as application of income for exemption u/s 11 & 12 as the assessee is registered

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 392/LKW/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

credit for a sum of Rs.8600000 for the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel as done by the Assessing Officer, no addition is liable to be made for the A.Y. 2003-04 resulting into consequential relief of Rs.1377772. Hence, grounds no, 5 and 6 are partly allowed while ground no. 7 is allowed.” 10. In assessment year

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 394/LKW/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

credit for a sum of Rs.8600000 for the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel as done by the Assessing Officer, no addition is liable to be made for the A.Y. 2003-04 resulting into consequential relief of Rs.1377772. Hence, grounds no, 5 and 6 are partly allowed while ground no. 7 is allowed.” 10. In assessment year

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 396/LKW/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

credit for a sum of Rs.8600000 for the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel as done by the Assessing Officer, no addition is liable to be made for the A.Y. 2003-04 resulting into consequential relief of Rs.1377772. Hence, grounds no, 5 and 6 are partly allowed while ground no. 7 is allowed.” 10. In assessment year

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 390/LKW/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

credit for a sum of Rs.8600000 for the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel as done by the Assessing Officer, no addition is liable to be made for the A.Y. 2003-04 resulting into consequential relief of Rs.1377772. Hence, grounds no, 5 and 6 are partly allowed while ground no. 7 is allowed.” 10. In assessment year

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 395/LKW/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

credit for a sum of Rs.8600000 for the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel as done by the Assessing Officer, no addition is liable to be made for the A.Y. 2003-04 resulting into consequential relief of Rs.1377772. Hence, grounds no, 5 and 6 are partly allowed while ground no. 7 is allowed.” 10. In assessment year

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 393/LKW/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

credit for a sum of Rs.8600000 for the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel as done by the Assessing Officer, no addition is liable to be made for the A.Y. 2003-04 resulting into consequential relief of Rs.1377772. Hence, grounds no, 5 and 6 are partly allowed while ground no. 7 is allowed.” 10. In assessment year

(SMT.) ANJU SINGH,LUCKNOW vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals for assessment year 2003-04 to 2008-09

ITA 391/LKW/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri. T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 132ASection 133ASection 69

credit for a sum of Rs.8600000 for the disclosure made by Shri K. N. Singh Patel as done by the Assessing Officer, no addition is liable to be made for the A.Y. 2003-04 resulting into consequential relief of Rs.1377772. Hence, grounds no, 5 and 6 are partly allowed while ground no. 7 is allowed.” 10. In assessment year