U.P. FOREST CORPORATION vs. DY. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

justice inasmuch as the appellant-Corporation had not been given an opportunity of hearing and directed the Commissioner to re- decide the Corporation’s application dated 11th July 1988 for registration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Corporation. The Commissioner decided against the Corporation against which order an appeal filed by the Corporation before the Tribunal at Lucknow

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) KOLKATA vs. JAGANNATH GUPTA FAMILY TRUST

Appeal is allowed, with directions as indicated

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

charitable purposes, namely, medical relief, education, any other causes of public utility etc. It is stated that the respondent-trust is running an Engineering College. 4. A survey was conducted under Section 133A of the Act, in the premises of School of Human Genetics and Population Health (SHGPH), Kolkata by the Investigation Wing on 27.01.2014. It appears, during the said

ASSISTANT COMMNR., INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD

charitable institution’ entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act from payment of income-tax. The assessee, therefore, made an application on February 10, 1992 for registration under Section 12A of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot registered 2 it on July 8, 1996. The assessee filed its return of income on October

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or (e)   any   company   or   co­operative   society carrying on the business of insurance, or (f) such other institution, association or body   [or   class   of   institutions, 11 associations or bodies] which the Central Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, notify in this behalf in the Official Gazette

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW. vs. U.P. FOREST CORPORATION

Appeals are allowed

Justice A.P. Misra Ranbir Chandra, N.K. Aggarwal, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the appellant S.P. Gupta, Sr.Adv., Sunil Gupta, H.K. Puri, Advs. with him for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: KIRPAL. J. The question involved in these appeals is whether the respondent is a local authority

M/S APEX LABORATORIES P. LTD. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT II

The appeal is dismissed without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

nature of such an interpretation was dealt with in a similar interpretation of the provisions of PC Act, by a Constitution Bench of this Court in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE)21. Prior to the 2018 amendment22, the PC Act only punished the bribe- 21 (1998) 4 SCC 626. 22 Subs. Section 8, Act 16 of 2018, w.e.f