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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

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 of the rule I.T.A.Noa.48, 46, 47, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56 & 68/20 & 6/21 :: 25 :: against delegation with which

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 - III vs. LALIT KUMAR BIYANI

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

4. The app of know does no case of Income I the wid would involve 5. The sec partake from th purpose corrobo by the s O&M) Page 2 of 8 e Educational Society (appellant passed by the CIT(E) refusing to section 12A read with section ide its order dated 30.06.2018 w spondent-Society had applied f nning

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

4 reimburse these expenses to the society and the society also receives a fee for conducting these courses. Therefore, this cannot be considered as charitable work done by them. Hence, the DCIT-1(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