GANGABAI CHARITIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, this Court dismissing the appeals of the assessee-trust, HELD : 1.01. The crux of the statutory exemption under Section 1(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not the income earned from property held under the trust but the actual application of the said income for religious and charitable

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

Appeal stand dismissed with no order as to costs

11. (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of the 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 to such purposes

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

D G M E N T R.F.Nariman, J. 1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions. 2. The present appeals relate to a common judgment dated 24th September, 2007 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital in two income tax appeals, and a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 29th January, 2010 in Pine Grove International

M/S NEW NOBLE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1

The appeals are hereby dismissed, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

1 SCR 565).The test which has, therefore, to be applied is whether the object which is said to be non- charitable is a main or primary object of the trust or institution or it is ancillary or incidental to the dominant or primary object which is charitable.” The court then interpreted the definition in the following 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

11 The CBDT circular being clarificatory in nature, was in effect from the date of implementation of Regulation 6.8 of the 2002 Regulations, i.e., from 14.12.2009. 20. In Dy. CIT 8(2) Mumbai v PHL Pharma P. Ltd.20 the ITAT reiterated Max Hospital’s (supra) decision to conclude that the 2002 Regulations were inapplicable to pharmaceutical companies, and that

M/S. ANANDA SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, we find that there is no reason to

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5437-5438/2012 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned Judgment(s) and Order(s) passed by the High Court of Karnataka. In our considered view, the reasons assigned by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) need no interference

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

D G M E N T     R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.    1. Leave granted. 2.   These appeals are preferred, by the State­owned Undertaking, Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation Ltd., a 1 Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2022.01.03 16:37:04 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. company registered under the Companies

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

charitable purpose of the Satsang. [319 E, F] 1.04. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the Radhasoami Satsang was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [321 D] Patel Chhotahhai and Ors. v.Janan Chandra Bask and Ors., AIR 314 1935 Privy Council 97; Acharya Jagdish-Waranand Avadhuta

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

Appeals are allowed

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 and, therefore, its income is exempt from tax under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’) The U.P. Forest Corporation, the assessee

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

D G M E N T C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad on March 31, 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 1247 of 2002 [Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., (2003) 262 ITR 146]. By the said judgment

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

D. Mahesh Babu waives notice of appeal on behalf of the sole respondent [hereafter called “the assessee”]. The appeal is heard finally. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (hereafter referred to “revenue”) is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of the Delhi High court1. The impugned judgment upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) which affirmed

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

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

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

d)  the  Unit   Trust   of   India  established under the Unit 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

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

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

D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 14.03.2007 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Misc. Appeal(Income Tax) No.6 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside