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

The appeals are dismissed

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

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 in this behalf in the Official Gazette

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

E NT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. It has been said that education is the key that unlocks the golden door to freedom.1 In Avinash Mehrotra v Union of India2, this court underlined the object and value of education in the following words: 1An aphorism common to all faiths. Proverb 4:13 states, “Take hold of instruction

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

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 as the same

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

E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 2) All these four appeals are filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revenue), wherein the respondent is also the same (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’). Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date: 2018.01.24 15:54:29 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 Even

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

trust or legal obli- gation, (b) the property should be so held for charitable or religious purposes which enure for the benefit of the pub- lic. [317 E-G] 1.03. The property was given to the Satguru for the common purpose of furthering the objects of the Sat Guru. The property was therefore subject to a legal liability of being

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 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

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 Charitable Trust

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

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

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 Act, 1956, engaged

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

E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave granted. Mr. 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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

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 the order Digitally signed

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

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, the High Court confirmed

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

E N T S.A. BOBDE, J. The appellant-assessee manufacture goods falling under Chapter 24 of the Schedule of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). While selling goods, the appellant-assessee charged the customers invoices for the price of goods plus Dharmada, a charitable donation. According to the appellant, the Dharmada was paid voluntarily

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

E R S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Leave granted. The appellant (hereinafter, “Apex”) is aggrieved by a judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madras1, wherein the Division Bench upheld an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2 (hereinafter, “ITAT”), which in turn upheld an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)3 (hereinafter