COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT LTD

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

1 of the Indian Trusts Act makes provisions of the Act inapplicable to public or private religious or charitable endowments; and so, these sections may not in terms apply to the trust now in question. These sections however embody nothing more or less than the principles which have been applied to all trusts in all countries. The principle

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. M/S BOMBAY BUILDER

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Trust was registered under Section 12AA of the Act, 1961 vide order 2 dated 05.05.2008 and was granted exemption under Section 80G vide proceedings dated 05.07.2013. 3. The assessee has been filing regularly its return of income within due date under Section 139(1) of the Act, 1961 claiming exemptions under Section 11 of the Act, 1961. A survey

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

M/S FINGROWTH COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - III vs. LALIT KUMAR BIYANI

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Section passed Kottaya 10. We hav 11. For ca Tribuna M D B fo h sy a c 1 b a d v th a p p fo th m g O&M) Page 4 of 8 d counsel has contended that trai e ITAT has erred in directing the n 12A and 12AA

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S NITIN SPINNERS LTD.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

1), Raipur did not recommend for approval under Section 80G of the Act as the society was not doing any charitable work. 5. The CIT, Raipur vide order dated 25.08.2014 rejected the application filed by the assessee / respondent for approval under Section 80G of the Act stating that the respondent Society is running its institutes on commercial lines, the Society