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

GANGABAI CHARITIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

34,000 to the trust fund. With that fund a plot of land was purchased and the construction of a building was begun. The fund was augmented by her son from his own contribution as well as from outside donations. The building was completed at the cost of about Rs. six lakhs and it was let out as a marriage

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

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

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 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

34:43 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 for the benefit of Explanation 1 to Section 37(1), which denies the application of the benefit for any purpose which is an ‘offence’ or ‘prohibited by law’. 3. After the circular was issued, on 22.11.2012, Apex was issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the IT Act, to explain