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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 12AA(3). The respondent assessee replied to the notice. However, the CIT (E) cancelled the registration of the respondent assessee on the ground that the respondent assessee has not received corpus donation of Rs.1,12,00,000/-. The CIT (E) has not disputed the application of the fund by the respondent assessee towards charitable objects of the Trust

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-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAM KALI KHOLI WALE

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 12A of the Act of 1961, although it was a public trust registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 and therefore could not claim any exemption from the deduction [2026:RJ-JP:13090-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-13/2025] of TDS under the provisions of the Act which allow certain exemptions to charitable

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

3. The res was run training by Nati 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

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

3 (iii) How rent received by the society can be considered as charitable. The respondent has filed details from time to time. These details are basically regarding work done by the Society. However, regarding charitable work done by the respondent, it insists that it is in the field of education. The respondent has further submitted that if the respondent

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SANDEEP CHHABRA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without understanding the contents therein?” 3. Both the learned Counsel for the parties jointly state that the controversy and the questions involved in this appeal are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 25.06.2024 in ITA/32/2019 [CIT(Exemption) Kolkata Vs. M/s. Gobind Ram Goel Charitable Trust