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.

237 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka462Delhi384Mumbai237Chennai132Bangalore117Ahmedabad68Hyderabad61Jaipur58Chandigarh56Pune56Kolkata46Lucknow26Indore25Visakhapatnam18Calcutta16Agra14Rajkot13Amritsar13Cuttack11Allahabad10Nagpur10Surat9Cochin9Raipur8Telangana7Varanasi5Patna4Dehradun4Jabalpur3SC3Guwahati2Jodhpur2Rajasthan2Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 11157Section 143(3)81Section 12A70Section 2(15)70Exemption59Addition to Income43Section 14741Section 26341Section 153A30

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 113/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
Section 10Section 11Section 14Section 24Section 250

65,693 as reflected in Income and Expenditure Account without considering that when the deduction for Statutory deduction u/s. 24(a) claimed in the Return of Income is disallowed, the Appellant is entitled to deduction Page | 3 ITA No. 113/Mum/2024 and ITA No. 650/Mum/2024 Nandlal Tolani Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16 for actual repairs and maintenance

NANDLAL TOLANI CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(1), CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI

ITA 650/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 237 · Page 1 of 12

...
Section 80I26
Charitable Trust25
Deduction25
ITAT Mumbai
23 Jul 2024
AY 2015-16
Section 10Section 11Section 14Section 24Section 250

65,693 as reflected in Income and Expenditure Account without considering that when the deduction for Statutory deduction u/s. 24(a) claimed in the Return of Income is disallowed, the Appellant is entitled to deduction\nPage | 3\nITA No. 113/Mum/2024\nand ITA No. 650/Mum/2024\nNandlal Tolani Charitable Trust; A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16\nfor actual repairs and maintenance

ADIT (E) RG I, MUMBAI vs. MEHTA CHARITY TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1069/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2004-05 The Ddit(E)I(1), Mehta Charity Trust, R. No.504, Piramal Top Floor, Mehta Mahal, 15Th बनाम/ Chambers, 5Thfloor, Parel, Mathew Road, Opera House, Vs. Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaatm5060A

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

65,500/-, being 2 Mehta Charity Trust capital gain arising from sale of building, was eligible for exemption u/s 11(1) of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating that said sum was utilized otherwise then for acquiring capital assets in contravention of section 11(1A), thus, the assessee was not entitle to exemption of the said amount. 2. During hearing

PEGASUS PROPERTIES P. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT, CC-2(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 943/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Dhramveer Singh
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 22Section 23Section 23(4)

Charitable Trust. Accordingly, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed. 23. Coming to Ground Nos. 14 and 15 which are in respect of Ad-hoc disallowance of advertisement and sales promotion expenses amounting to ₹.9,71,368/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed his submissions in respect of this issue as under: - “Ground

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4391/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Trust (LPB Page 62 onwards at pages 65 and 66) to decide the scope of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Relevant extract is reproduced as under: - Para 6 The legal controversy in the present Tax Appeal centers around the first proviso. In the plain terms, the proviso provides for exclusion from the main object

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4395/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Trust (LPB Page 62 onwards at pages 65 and 66) to decide the scope of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Relevant extract is reproduced as under: - Para 6 The legal controversy in the present Tax Appeal centers around the first proviso. In the plain terms, the proviso provides for exclusion from the main object

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4392/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Trust (LPB Page 62 onwards at pages 65 and 66) to decide the scope of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Relevant extract is reproduced as under: - Para 6 The legal controversy in the present Tax Appeal centers around the first proviso. In the plain terms, the proviso provides for exclusion from the main object

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Trust (LPB Page 62 onwards at pages 65 and 66) to decide the scope of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Relevant extract is reproduced as under: - Para 6 The legal controversy in the present Tax Appeal centers around the first proviso. In the plain terms, the proviso provides for exclusion from the main object

MUMBAI METROPLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) -1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas
Section 10Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Trust (LPB Page 62 onwards at pages 65 and 66) to decide the scope of the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. Relevant extract is reproduced as under: - Para 6 The legal controversy in the present Tax Appeal centers around the first proviso. In the plain terms, the proviso provides for exclusion from the main object

DDIT (E)-1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 1809/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) dated 28/12/2011. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under:- “GROUNDS OF APPEAL I. TREATING OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST AS MUTUAL CONCERN AND THEREBY DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the appellant ,a Charitable Trust as a Mutual Association and applying the principles of mutuality

MATUNGA GYMKHANA,MUMBAI vs. ADIT (E) -I-(1), MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4468/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) dated 28/12/2011. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under:- “GROUNDS OF APPEAL I. TREATING OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST AS MUTUAL CONCERN AND THEREBY DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the appellant ,a Charitable Trust as a Mutual Association and applying the principles of mutuality

DDIT (E) 1(1), MUMBAI vs. MATUNGA GYMKHANA, MUMBAI

In the result, while of appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, that of assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 4768/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: S/ Shri Arvind Sonde/For Respondent: Shri M.Rajan
Section 11Section 11(4)Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) dated 28/12/2011. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal read as under:- “GROUNDS OF APPEAL I. TREATING OF THE CHARITABLE TRUST AS MUTUAL CONCERN AND THEREBY DENYING EXEMPTION U/S 11: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the appellant ,a Charitable Trust as a Mutual Association and applying the principles of mutuality

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1792/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

65,00,000/- in respect of donations to Karnala Charitable Trust, without issuing any show cause notice for the proposed addition and further, failing to discuss the same in the assessment order, when the same was not even appearing in the reasons recorded u/s. 147. 11. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1791/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

65,00,000/- in respect of donations to Karnala Charitable Trust, without issuing any show cause notice for the proposed addition and further, failing to discuss the same in the assessment order, when the same was not even appearing in the reasons recorded u/s. 147. 11. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case

DCIT CIR 1(4) , MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 147

65,00,000/- in respect of donations to Karnala Charitable Trust, without issuing any show cause notice for the proposed addition and further, failing to discuss the same in the assessment order, when the same was not even appearing in the reasons recorded u/s. 147. 11. On the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case

DDIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI vs. M.L. CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3653/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

65 Tax Man 320 (SC) in the case J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Union of India cannot be allowed. 2)“The Appellant prays that the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3)“The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which

DDIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI vs. M.L. CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3652/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

65 Tax Man 320 (SC) in the case J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Union of India cannot be allowed. 2)“The Appellant prays that the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3)“The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which

M.L. CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (E) I(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3893/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 11

65 Tax Man 320 (SC) in the case J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Union of India cannot be allowed. 2)“The Appellant prays that the order of the ld.CIT (Appeals)-1, Mumbai be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 3)“The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which

THE GEM & JEWELLERY EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (E) RG 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for 10

ITA 752/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Gem & Jewellery Export Acit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Vs. Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, 5Th Floor, Room No. 519, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Gem & Jewellery Export Dcit (Exemptions) Range- Promotion Council, 2(1), Tower-A, Aw-1010, G Block, Vs. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Lalbaug, B.K.C., Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaatt 3202 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Vishwas Rao
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 253

Section 2(15). indicated by proviso (ii) to Section 2(15). 174. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth 74. The insertion of Section 13(8)144 , the seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso to Section proviso to Section 10(23C) and third proviso

THE BOMBAY SOCIETY OF THE FRANCISCAN CLARIST SISTERS OF THE MOST BLESSED SACRAMENT,MUMBAI vs. ITO EXEM WARD 2(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2501/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No.2501/Mum/2025 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-2024) The Bombay Society Of V/S. Income Tax Officer, The Franciscan Clarist बिाम Ward 2(4), Mumbai Sisters Of The Most 6Th Floor, Mtnl Tel. Ex. Blessed Sacrament Building, Cumballa Hills, St. Anthony’S Home For The Pedder Road, Mumbai Aged, 51, Chapel Road, 400026 Bandra (West), Mumbai 400050 स्थायी लेखा सुं./जीआइआर सुं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatt0738Q Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रधिवादी धििााररिी की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Prashant Ghumare, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. Dr (Virtually Present) स िवाई की िारीख / Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 घोर्णा की िारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Addl/Jcit (A)-2 Delhi, [Cit(A)] Dated 28.02.2025 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

charitable trust u/s. 12A of the Act, filed return declaring income of Rs. 21,65,070/- for AY 2023-24 after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessee had accumulated funds of Rs. 32,50,000/- for FY 2016-17 u/s. 11(2) of the Act, which were intended to be utilised within the prescribed period