SHRI VIJAY MAKHIJA S/O SHRI GOVIND RAM MAKHIJA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF TAX-I

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;” Additionally, the same amendment also inserted “yoga” (after Page 12 of 20 (Tax Case No.81/2019) “education”) as a listed category of charitable activity, in the substantive provision. 14.A careful perusal of Section 2(15) of the IT Act would reveal that the expression “charitable purpose” has been

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT. PALLAVI MISHRA,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,UMA SHANKER VYAS

1) of section 12A, shall — (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) after satisfying himself about the objects of the trust or institution and the genuineness of its activities as required under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) and compliance of the requirements under sub-clause (ii) of the said clause, he— 3 (i) shall pass an order in writing registering

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, 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

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 5. So far as the observation ncome of the assessee is not from hat the same cannot be said to b held under the trust is concerned, with the above observation of the L he claim of the appellant trust. reimbursed the amount spent by carrying out its 'education / trainin skill development programme of th our view