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

trust has several objects, some of which are charitable and others are non-charitable and the trustees have unfettered discretion to apply the income to any of the objects, the whole claim for exemption would fail and no part of the income would be exempted from tax. The respondent Society is engaged in commercial activities and cannot be considered

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Section ated for cancellation, on ectives of the Trust has ssessee is carrying on plementing the welfare ments, supplying food to also reported that there b-contract; which funds d, without any charitable ssee also did not proffer activity carried on other ption the activity of the r. However this activity f the State Governments, bursed by the State