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 purposes in India by purchasing a building which is to be utilised as a hospital. This income, therefore, is entitled to an exemption under Section 11(1). In addition, under Section 11(1)(a), the assessee can accumulate 25% of its total income pertaining to the relevant assessment year and claim exemption in respect thereof. Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

Appeal stand dismissed with no order as to costs

25 which the Board may determine to charge to revenue; (i) any expenditure incurred under Section 26; (j) any other expenditure which may be incurred by the Board generally for the purpose of this Act; (k) any other charge which may on the application of the Board or otherwise be specially sanctioned by the State Government or for which

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

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

charitable purpose” (w.e.f. 01.04.2009), as well as the later amendments, and other related provisions of the IT Act. A. General test under Section 2(15) A.1. 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, or fee, or any other

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

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

25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The assessee is a ‘Stock Exchange’ duly recognized under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. As a ‘Stock Exchange’, it is a ‘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

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

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

25, 2015, the correctness whereof is challenged by the Revenue in these appeals. Thus, we propose to club all these appeals and proceed to decide by a singular judgment. 3) The issue pertains to the validity of the proceedings which were initiated by the Assessing Officer (for short, ‘AO’) under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

25:26 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 3. Initially, the Adjudicating Authority held that the Dharmada component was not part of the trading receipts and could not be included in the assessable value and dropped the demand for excise duty and the penalty. 4. However, another show cause notice dated 3.8.2001 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

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

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

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

10-12-2009 imposing a prohibition on the medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any Gift, Travel facility, Hospitality, Cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries. 3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the business