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

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani

Trust. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT (E) cancelling the registration of the respondent assessee under Section 12AA(3) of the Act, 1961, the respondent assessee filed an appeal being ITA Nos.728 & 729/Kol/2016 4 [Gobind Ram Goel Charitable

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

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

4-A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to Section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of Section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to Section 10(23-C) and third proviso to Section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009), reaffirm

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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 is into providing skill- development courses to various government organizations, these Government organizations 4 reimburse these expenses to the society and the society also receives a fee for conducting these courses. Therefore, this cannot be considered as charitable work done by them. Hence, the DCIT-1(1), Raipur did not recommend for approval under Section

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

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

charitable trusts under Section 12A. The CIT (TDS), by order dated 22.03.2024, reached to the conclusion that the AO had not properly conducted the inquiry and remanded the matter to the AO for conducting proper inquiry into all the aspects, which could not have been halted by the ITAT. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced

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

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

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 30.06.2018 w spondent-Society had applied f nning

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] relating to assessment