Search: charitable trust | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

7 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 194Iclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai7 Delhi6 Chandigarh2 Kolkata2

Key Topics

Section 4020 Section 1112 Section 40A(3)5 Section 1945 Section 1935 Deduction5 TDS5 Addition to Income5 Section 143(3)2 Section 12A2 Business Income2 Exemption2

DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI vs. SHEKHAR S. DADARKAR, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 819/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 193Section 194Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 194I were applicable to any payment made by the assessee to a charitable trust even if the said trust

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 34(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 2411/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 193Section 194Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 194I were applicable to any payment made by the assessee to a charitable trust even if the said trust

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP M/S, S.D. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 7642/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 193Section 194Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 194I were applicable to any payment made by the assessee to a charitable trust even if the said trust

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 1033/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 193Section 194Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 194I were applicable to any payment made by the assessee to a charitable trust even if the said trust

SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 31(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA

ITA 1032/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 193Section 194Section 40Section 40A(3)

section 194I were applicable to any payment made by the assessee to a charitable trust even if the said trust

THE PATHARE PRABHU CHARITIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4966/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

section 11(4A). 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the transaction with the caterer was in substance a mere passive letting of property, which could in no way be regarded as a business. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in going by the nomenclature of the income, and did not appreciate that the mere nomenclature

THE PATHARE PRABHU CHARITIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO (E) II (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4965/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

section 11(4A). 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the transaction with the caterer was in substance a mere passive letting of property, which could in no way be regarded as a business. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in going by the nomenclature of the income, and did not appreciate that the mere nomenclature