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.

9 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 13(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,170Delhi1,064Chennai610Karnataka573Bangalore534Ahmedabad383Pune340Jaipur309Hyderabad215Kolkata210Chandigarh150Cochin106Surat101Indore96Rajkot94Amritsar86Lucknow80Cuttack79Visakhapatnam61Raipur49Nagpur40Agra38Allahabad37Telangana32Jodhpur30Calcutta26Patna20SC20Dehradun12Guwahati10Kerala10Ranchi9Varanasi8Punjab & Haryana7Jabalpur7Rajasthan6Panaji6Orissa3Himachal Pradesh2Andhra Pradesh2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 1118Section 143(1)(a)9Section 12A8Section 801B8Exemption7Section 139(1)5Deduction4Addition to Income4Section 173

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom)(HC) has held as under:- Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT On a careful reading of section 139 of the Act, we are of the clear opinion that sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 139 have to be read together and on such a reading, the inevitable conclusion

Section 13(1)3
Section 133(6)3
Charitable Trust3

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/RAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

Charitable and Chaleshwar Temple Trust Vs CIT (207 ITR 368) (Bom)(HC) has held as under:- Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT On a careful reading of section 139 of the Act, we are of the clear opinion that sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 139 have to be read together and on such a reading, the inevitable conclusion

HOLYFAITH TRIBAL W AND D TRUST ,RANCHI vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 69/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, Holyfaith Tribal W & D Trust, Ranchi, I.T.O., 406, Midland East Apartment, 406, Midland East Apartment, Exemption Ward, Exemption Ward, Vs. Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Anantpur, Chutia, Doranda, Ranchi. Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) 834002 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaath 5200 R Aaath 5200 R Appellant/ Assessee Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 13(1)Section 133(6)Section 17

13(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is 1961 (the Act) and as such, the exemption claimed U/s 11 and 12 is disallowed. The notices U/s 133(6) were not issued rightly

SHREE SREE BALANANDA TRUST,DEOGHAR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD,, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 16/RAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi04 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryshree Sree Balananda Trust, I.T.O., Sri Sri Balananda Ashram, Karinabad, Exemption Ward, Vs. Deoghar, Dist.- Deoghar, Dhanbad. Jharkhand-841112 Pan No. Aabts 0579 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 154

13(9) of the Act. Even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee had not furnished any evidence for filing of Form-10 for the impugned assessment year. The claim of assessee regarding deduction under Section 11 of the Act was not considered by the Assessing Shree Sree Balananda Trust Vs ITO (E) Officer under Section 143(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. DUKHHARAN MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 261/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.261/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Exemption Ward, Ranchi ….…………….……...................……….……Appellant Vs. Dudhharan Memorial Charitable Trust.…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Rani Hospital Behind Machlighar Booty Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834001. [Pan: Aactd1772A] Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 20.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 250

Charitable Trust ₹1,20,000/- to Manorama Sinha respectively. The Assessing Officer held that the above payments were excessive and unreasonable, and accordingly invoked the provisions of section 13

ACIT vs. M/S XAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICE,

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 100/RAN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Banka, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sutariaya, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 35A

13. Before the CIT(A), ld A.R. of the assessee argued that the assessee owns vehicles, building, staff quarters, furnitures and other assets on which depreciation has been claimed. It has also been contended that the income of a charitable trust as contemplated by section 11(1

M/S CHURCH SCHOOL,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT, JAMSHEPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee being ITA No

ITA 103/RAN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 May 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Anshul Ringasia, Advocate, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mondal, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(23)(c)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234B

section 10(23)( c )(vi) of the IT Act and has held that mere surplus does not mean that institution is existing for M/s. Church School making profit. The predominant object test must be applied. Hon’ble Apex Court while affirming the decision of Punjab and Haryana High court in case of Pine Grove international charitable trust v/s Union

SHREE DIGAMBER JAIN BHAWAN,RANCHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTIO), PATNA

In the result, we find that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court of Delhi

ITA 28/RAN/2019[0]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Sept 2020

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara)

Section 12A

charitable in nature and whether the activities which the Trust proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the Trust. In contrast, the position would be different where the Commissioner proposes to cancel the registration of a Trust under sub-section (3) of section 12AA of the Act. There

ITO EXEMPTION WARD , JAMSHEDPUR vs. ALL INDIA WOMEN'S CONFERENCE , JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 230/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 215Section 271(1)(c)

1 of provision of Section 215, as such, exemption u/s 11 to 13 was denied. 3. For that the appellant was doing trading to support the unfortunate widows and other handicapped persons to earn their livelihood and to support themselves. Surplus generated was used for the purposes of charity. As such