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-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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

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, 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, AJMER vs. M/S NITIN SPINNERS LTD.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SANDEEP MEHTA,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

12 AA, irrespective of the finding of the CIT that the society is engaged in commercial activities and cannot be considered as charitable?” 3. The necessary facts of the case are that the assessee / respondent is a Society who filed an application for grant of approval under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

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 a private Industrial Trainin g to the students, and the same w ional Council for Vocational Tra plication was rejected by the CI wledge or skill does not qualif