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

2) Act, 1998. Section 10(23-C)(vi) is analogous to Section 10(22). To that extent, the judgments of this Court as applicable to Section 10(22) would equally apply to Section 10(23-C)(vi). The problem arises with the insertion of the provisos to Section 10(23-C)(vi). With the insertion of the provisos to Section

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

trust or other legal obligation wholly for charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in sub-clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2 shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee(the total income for this purpose being computed

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

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

12 case public trust has been constituted and registered under this Act. Public trust is defined therein under clause (13) of Section 2 thereof. Applicability of the Bombay Public Trust Act is again not disputed. Under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trust Act it shall be the duty of the trustee of a public trust to which that

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

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

2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)] and subsequently it is noticed that the activities of the trust or the institution are being carried out in a manner that the provisions of sections 11 and 12 do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of such trust or institution due to operation of sub- section

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

2 (15) or Section 11 needs to be gone into afresh. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revenue’s appeal succeeds in part. The AO shall examine the documents and relevant papers and render fresh findings on the issue whether respondent is a charitable trust

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

2 of 8 the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that the income derived by the Radha Swami Satsang, a religious institution, was entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?", the High Court answered the question in favour of the Revenuerespondent, holding that the trust deed was revocable and the conditions

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

2 of 3 case of Valjibhai Muljibhai Soneji v. State of Bombay, (now Gujarat) [1964] 3 SCR 686 wherein it was held that the definitions given in the General Clauses Act, govern all Central Acts and Regulations made after the commencement of this Act. Following the said decision, this Court held that even though Section

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-III vs. SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY

The appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid observations

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

12 of the Act apply to the assessee as per which income earned by the assessee from property held for 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

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

Appeals are allowed

2) of Section 45, which elucidates the said power also shows that the said power is confined to internal management of the corporation and the service conditions of its employees only". (emphasis added) Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that it is not possible to hold that the Corporation

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

2 includes sur­ charge.” Para 20 of the judgment in the case of Sarojini Tea Co. Ltd.2 reads as under : “20. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that surcharge on land rev­ enue payable under the Surcharge Act is not land rev­ enue but a levy which is distinct from land

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 (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

The appeals are dismissed

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

2)[***] (3)   The   provisions   of   sub­section   (1)   shall not apply ­ (i).... 5[***] (iii) to such income credited or paid to­ (a)   any   banking   company   to   which   the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (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

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

trust reposed in doctors. Therefore, it is a matter of great public importance and concern, when it is demonstrated that a doctor’s prescription can be manipulated, and driven by the motive to avail the freebies offered to them by pharmaceutical companies, ranging from gifts such as gold coins, fridges and LCD TVs to funding international trips for vacations

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

12. The appellant manufactured and sold chewing tobacco to their customers. A price was paid by the customers as ‘consideration’ for these goods i.e. transfer of property of the goods to the customers. This is clear from the invoices. THE ‘TRANSACTION VALUE’ FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARIVING AT ASSESSABLE VALUE Sale and purchase have been defined vide Section 2