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) of the Act, 1961, the respondent assessee filed an appeal being ITA Nos.728 & 729/Kol/2016 4 [Gobind Ram Goel Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions), Kolkata], which was allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata by order dated 18.08.2017. Aggrieved with the order of the ITAT, the Revenue has filed the present appeal

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

Bench: SABINA,PRAKASH GUPTA

charitable purpose” (w.e.f. 1-4-2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under Section 2(15) 270. It is clarified that an assessee advancing general public utility cannot engage itself in any trade, commerce or business, or provide service in relation thereto for any consideration (“cess

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

8 n our view, duly fall within the pu erm 'Education' as used in 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

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-CENTRAL, vs. MS. HARSHITA MAHESHWARI,

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA

Charitable societies and trusts are not part of the estate of the testatrix which are managed by the respective managing committees and trustees of the societies or trusts. The companies are separate legal entities controlled by their Board of Directors and the affairs of the estate of the testatrix do not include the right to control the affairs

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

Bench: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN

Charitable societies and trusts are not part of the estate of the testatrix which are managed by the respective managing committees and trustees of the societies or trusts. The companies are separate legal entities controlled by their Board of Directors and the affairs of the estate of the testatrix do not include the right to control the affairs