M/S QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

charitable character of the purpose would not be lost. 9. Coming closer to the section at hand, in Aditanar Educational Institution v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 224 ITR 310, this Court while construing the predecessor Section, namely, Section 10(22) of the Income Tax act, held: “The High Court has made an observation that any income which

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

Appeal stand dismissed with no order as to costs

10(20) and Section 11 of the 1961 Act operate in totally different spheres. Even if the Board has ceased to be a "Local Authority", it is not precluded from claiming exemption under Section 11(1) of the 1961 Act. therefore, we have to read Section 11(1) in the light of the definition of the words "charitable purposes

GANGABAI CHARITIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

charitable and/or cultural and social purposes. It is nowhere stated in the trust deed that the trust itself has been created for the purpose of carrying out any of such objectives. The holding and conducting of religious discourses and the running of schools for the development of Sanskrit have also been mentioned from the point of view of the users

K.R. PATEL(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

charitable nature. This constituted 1/3 of the property of the testator after funeral expenses, expenses for obtaining probate and paying debts of the testator, if any. One of the questions raised was whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 1/3 of the property mentioned in the will could be said to be held under trust

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

10. Being aggrieved, the Corporation filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act before the High Court. By the impugned order dated 26th November 2002, the High Court has remanded the matter to the Tribunal for considering the matter afresh. Aggrieved by the said order, the Corporation is in appeal before us by filing the aforementioned appeals. The Revenue

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI vs. SERVANTS OF PEOPLE SOCIETY

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

10. This court had also considered the nature of income derived by a trust, which was managing a newspaper. The observations pertaining to that assessee, i.e. the Tribune Trust, are relevant: “257. It is noticed from the impugned judgment that the High Court concedes to the fact that the trust's activities were held by the Privy Council to constitute

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

Appeals are allowed

10(20) of the Act. Coming to the question whether the income of the respondent is held for charitable purposes and, therefore, exempt from tax by virtue of Section 11(1) of the Act, we find no such contention was raised by the respondent before the Income-tax Authorities. In order to take advantage of the provisions of Section

M/S.RADHA-SAOMI SAT SANG,SAOMI BAGH,AGRA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

sections 60-63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8 person in receipt of the income: (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied

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

INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GWALIOR) M.P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GWALIOR M.P

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

charitable purpose under Section 2(15) of the Act, they were entitled to claim registration as provided under Section 12 (A) of the Act. Since the application for registration was delayed in its filing, the appellant also made an application for condonation of delay in filing the application. 5. By order dated 13.04.1999, the CIT (Gwalior) condoned the delay

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY

The appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid observations

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

charitable or religious purposes (Section 11) and income from contributions are exempt from taxation under certain circumstances. 4) It so happened that a search and seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on one Mr. M.N. Navale, President of the 3 assessee Society, and his wife on July 20, 2005 from where certain documents were seized

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

10 of 1949), applies,   or   any   co­operative   society engaged   in   carrying   on   the   business   of banking   (including   a   co­operative   land mortgage bank), or (b) any financial corporation established by   or   under   a   Central,   State   or Provincial Act, or (c)   the   Life   Insurance   Corporation   of India established under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or (d)  the  Unit

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Charitable Trust (iii) interest accrued/paid on the unsecured loans and (iv) provision for income tax (which was disallowed). Separate penalty proceedings were initiated under sections 271(1)(a). 271(1)(c), 273/274 and 271-B of the Act. 2.12 The assessees then preferred appeals before the CIT(A). Subsequently on 08th December, 2000, the writ petitions filed by the assessees

M/S. D.J. MALPANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NASHIK

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

trust during the period of the show cause notices. 10. The only question that arises for decision is whether the amount included as Dharmada by a manufacturer and credited for charitable purposes is liable to be included in the assessable value of manufactured goods; the seller having merely acted as conduit between the purchaser and charity. 11. It is necessary

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

10 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. 11. Sri Venkataraman, learned ASG appearing for the revenue, by drawing our attention to the provisions under Articles 285 and 289 of the   Constitution   of   India,   has   explained   the   intent   behind   the amendment to Section 40 of the Income­tax Act, 1961, by Act 17 of 2013.  It is submitted that in terms

ASSTT. COMMNR., INCOME TAX, SURAT vs. SURAT CITY GYMKHANA

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Were Also Dismissed. Aggrieved Thereby, The Assessee Filed Further Appeals Before

Section 10(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The said exemption was claimed on the basis that the objects of the respondent-assessee are exclusively charitable. The assessing officer rejected the claim. Appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were also dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee filed further

DR.B.N.HOSPITAL & N.HOSPITAL RES.CENTRE vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

The appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

Trust registered with the Charity Commissioner. It runs full fledged Multi Speciality Hospital in Mumbai. On 1st March, 1988, Government of India issued a Notification No 64 of 1988 exempting import of equipments by hospitals from payment of customs duty on fulfillment of conditions prescribed therein. We quote hereinbelow the said Notification: “In exercise of the powers conferred