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

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,KULDEEP MATHUR

charitable trust. This Trust was taken over by Believers Church, Thiruvalla vide agreement dated 23/02/2009 and by that agreement all the assets and liabilities of Carmel Educational Trust were transferred to Believers Church and the assesses ceased to be the trustees of Carmel Educational Trust. According to the CIT(A), the right of trusteeship is not legally enforceable right

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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

1) of the Act, 1961 claiming exemptions under Section 11 of the Act, 1961. A survey of the premises of a donor namely ‘School of Human Genetics and Population Health’ [for short, ‘SHGPH’] under Section 133A was conducted on 27.01.2015. During the survey operations, statement of Smt. Moumita Raghavan, Treasurer of SHGPH, was recorded. As per statement, she accepted donations

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-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

b) and (c) in the impugned order enforcing the APLs' decision by majority and recognizing the power of the Joint (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 83 of 300 APLs to act by majority is contrary to law and to the order of appointment of the APLs. 23. It is submitted

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

b) and (c) in the impugned order enforcing the APLs' decision by majority and recognizing the power of the Joint (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page 83 of 300 APLs to act by majority is contrary to law and to the order of appointment of the APLs. 23. It is submitted

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