BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

12 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 10(23)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi487Karnataka477Mumbai473Chennai291Bangalore241Jaipur122Ahmedabad110Pune101Kolkata97Hyderabad91Chandigarh72Lucknow42Cochin41Amritsar35Allahabad31Indore31Visakhapatnam26Cuttack26Telangana18Calcutta16Agra16Nagpur16Jodhpur13Surat13Rajkot12Raipur10SC10Varanasi6Kerala5Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana4Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh2Jabalpur2Patna2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 12A20Section 14810Section 80G(5)10Addition to Income9Section 118Disallowance8Section 13(1)(b)7Exemption6Section 36(1)(iii)5

SHREE MALIYA KADVA PATEL SEVA SAMAJ,,JUNAGADH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in above terms

ITA 187/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 13(1)(b)Section 250(6)

10 Shree Maliya Kadva Patel Seva Samaj vs. ITO other such type of institutes by collecting funds, donations, loans, etc. and shall do such other activities. 16. A bare perusal of the objects reveals that the first two objects clearly are solely for the benefit of Kadva Patels only, arranging accommodation facilities for them and helping the community members during

SHRI VISHA OSWAL MAHAJAN KHAROI, BHACHAU - KUTCHH - GUJARAT.,BHACHAU-KUTCH-GUJARAT vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

Section 36(1)5
Section 1474
Penalty2
ITA 325/RJT/2023[2022-23]Status: Disposed
ITAT Rajkot
09 Jul 2025
AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.325/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2022-23) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Visha Oswal Mahajan Kharoi, Vs. Cit(Exemption), Room No: 609, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhachau – Kutch 370140 Bhuvan, (Vejalpur), 100 Feet Road, Anandnagar Prahladnagar Road, Ahmedabad 380015 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapts3740J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Darshak Thakkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02 / 06 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09 / 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Darshak Thakkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. SR. DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 13(1)(b)

charitable activities is Relief to Poor, Medical Relief and Education. In the Next 02 years trust is having plan to perform all these activities at large scale. 2. Trust has Registered under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 on 13/02/1962. Trust has applied for approval u/s 12AA for First time. Activities of trust has been commenced in the year of creation

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 612/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

23)(iiia) and (iiib) of the I.T. Act. However, the appellant did not claim exemption either u/s.139(4A) r.w.s. 139(1) or in the return filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer stated that the appellant initially did not claim exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab)(iiiad) of the Act in the ITR u/s.139

SHRI GANDHI MAULANA AZAD SHRAMJIVI ASHRA,KUTCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeals of the assessee, are allowed

ITA 611/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iiia)Section 11Section 139Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)

23)(iiia) and (iiib) of the I.T. Act. However, the appellant did not claim exemption either u/s.139(4A) r.w.s. 139(1) or in the return filed in response to the notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer stated that the appellant initially did not claim exemption u/s.10(23C)(iiiab)(iiiad) of the Act in the ITR u/s.139

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT BRANCH,SOMNATH vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 180/RJT/2024[0]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 180 & 181/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) Indian Red Cross Society Gir Somnath Cit(Exemption) Vs. District Branch Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Block No.4, Divya Apartment, Opp. Sbi Ayakar Bhavan (Vejalpur), 100Ft Bank, 80Ft Road, Veraval, Gir-Somnath, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 Gujarat-362266 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabai3231R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

23-03-2024, which is belated by 207 days. 9. That the Appellant is an association of person set up as a district branch of Indian Red Cross Society in the year 2015 and it was duly provisionally registered vide certificate Form 10AC dated 05-12-2022 for the period A.Y. 2023-24 to A.Υ. 2025-26. 10. That

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY GIR SOMNATH DISTRICT BRANCH,GIR SOMNATH vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 181/RJT/2024[0]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 180 & 181/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (Na) Indian Red Cross Society Gir Somnath Cit(Exemption) Vs. District Branch Room No. 609, Floor No. 6, Block No.4, Divya Apartment, Opp. Sbi Ayakar Bhavan (Vejalpur), 100Ft Bank, 80Ft Road, Veraval, Gir-Somnath, Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 Gujarat-362266 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabai3231R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

23-03-2024, which is belated by 207 days. 9. That the Appellant is an association of person set up as a district branch of Indian Red Cross Society in the year 2015 and it was duly provisionally registered vide certificate Form 10AC dated 05-12-2022 for the period A.Y. 2023-24 to A.Υ. 2025-26. 10. That

ACIT, CIR-1(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT vs. SHRI RAJKOT DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD, RAJKOT

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

c) The assessee failed to provide any cogent material evidence so as to establish that the weighted expenses that have been allocated in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1) (viii) of the Act. (d) As regards assessee contention that its appeal on the identical issue has been allowed by the CIT(A), it may be pointed out that

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 235/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed

THE ASSISTANT COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, GANDHIDHAM CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. M/S KUTCH SALT & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD.,, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 233/RJT/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

C. Thacker, vehemently argued that assessee, has huge funds of Rs.28,34,76,940/-, available, as on 31-03-2011, on which no interest is payable, as against interest-free advances given to parties of Rs.4,35,00,000/-. This included Rs.2,15,00,000/- given to Maharaja Salt Works, as advance for purchase of salt. The said party failed