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

13 did not apply. Therefore, earlier prior to 1-4-1999 when exemption was given to the appellant, there was no assessment nor demand section 10(22) had an automatic effect. Once an applicant- institution came within the phrase 'exists solely for educational purposes and not for profit' no other conditions like application of income were required to be complied

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

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 Act applies to make an application for registration of the public trust. Section 29 of applies to public trust created

GANGABAI CHARITIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

charitable and/or cultural and social purposes. It is nowhere stated in the trust deed that the trust itself has been created for the purpose of carrying out any of such objectives. The holding and conducting of religious discourses and the running of schools for the development of Sanskrit have also been mentioned from the point of view of the users

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

13, then, the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner may by an order in writing cancel the registration of such trust or institution: Provided that the registration shall not be cancelled under this sub-section, if the trust or institution proves that there was a reasonable cause for the activities to be carried out in the said manner.] The above section

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.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

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

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

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

9. The judgment of this court, in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority had examined various kinds of activities to determine whether they are charitable in nature, relatable to trusts or societies with general public utility objectives. The court then recorded its findings, regarding the true interpretation of “charitable objects” under Section 2 (15) and summarized the findings as follows: “IV. Summation

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

9. After the matter was remanded by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow v. U.P. Forest Corporation (supra), the Assessing Authority held that the appellant was not a charitable institution and assessed the income in respect of Assessment Years 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1984-85 to tax. Commissioner (Appeal) partly allowed the appeals

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

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

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

13(1), New Delhi in respect of M/s Rattan Gupta & Co. under section 132(5) of the Act. It appears that the said Rattan Gupta informed the assessees about notices under section 148 of the Act issued to each of them at the CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 5 of 67 address of M/s Rattan Gupta & Co. at Daryaganj, New Delhi

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

9. Learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance on various judgments of this Court, which shall be referred to while considering the submissions in detail. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Present set of appeals relates to Section 194A of the IT Act, 1961. It is useful

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

9 C.A.@S.L.P.(C)No.12859 of 2020 etc. sales tax is nothing but an enhancement of tax itself.  In support of the said   submission,   the   learned   counsel   has   placed   reliance   on   the judgments of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. K. Srinivasan1 and in the case of Sarojini Tea Co. Ltd. v. Collector, Dibrugarh2.  Reference is also made

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

13. Under the Act, excise duty is chargeable with reference to their value on removal of the goods. In case of sale of goods where price is the sole consideration for the sale, duty is charged on the transaction value vide Section 45. Additional consideration if any is also included in the duty payable on such goods vide explanation. “Transaction

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

9 exemption. But the same is not absolute. Explanation 1, which was inserted in 1998 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962, restricts the application of such exemption for “any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law”. The IT Act does not provide a definition for these terms. Section 2(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines