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

15 Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1976) 1 SCC 254. 24 Thus, education i.e., imparting formal scholastic learning, is what the IT Act provides for under the head of “charitable” purposes, under Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD

Appeal stand dismissed with no order as to costs

1) has three sub-sections (a), (b) and (c). In all the three sub-sections the words used are "income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable purposes". Under Section 11(4) the expression "property held under trust" includes a business undertaking so held. In other words, income from business undertaking held for charitable purposes can fall under

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

15 supply cane to sugar factories implies an incidental power to ensure payment of price. In short, conferment of a power implies authority to do everything which could be fairly and reasonably regarded as incidental or consequential to the power conferred. *** Herbert Broom states in the preface to his celebrated work on Legal Maxims --"In the Legal Science, perhaps more

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

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

1, this Court while construing the definition of “charitable purpose” in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act held: “17. The next question that arises is as to what is the meaning of the expression “activity for profit”. Every trust

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

1)(b) of the KGST Act, it is not known how the surcharge on sales tax, which is nothing but the sales tax, can be brought in the net of Section 40(a)(iib)(A) or 40(a) (iib)(B) of the Act.  Further a clear distinction between ‘fee’ and ‘tax’ is carefully maintained throughout the scheme under 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

charitable trust entitled to the benefit of exemption 1 dated 16.11.2021 in ITA No. 161/2021 Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.02.03 17:52:05 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 and that it is registered under Section 12AA and 80G of the Income Tax Act (hereafter called the “Act”) were valid. 3. The facts are that the assessee society

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

charitable purposes. Section 12 is in the nature of an explanation of Section 11. Section 12A provides that provisions of Sections 11 and 12 shall not apply in relation to income of any trust or institution unless certain conditions are satisfied, one of which is clause (a), the same is reproduced as under: "12A. The provisions of section

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

Appeals are allowed

15) of the Act and, therefore, it’s income exempt under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, 1986(1) SCR 570. We will first consider the question as to whether the respondent is entitled

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

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

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 (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

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

The appeals are dismissed

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

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 by   or   under   a   Central,   State

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1. By this application, the revenue seeks a clarification of the judgment dated 19.10.2022, delivered by this court, in CA 21762/2017 and connected appeals. The clarification sought is that para 254 of the judgment should be such as to “enable the Revenue to redo the assessments in accordance with the above judgments for the past and examine the eligibility

ASSTT. COMMNR., INCOME TAX, SURAT vs. SURAT CITY GYMKHANA

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Were Also Dismissed. Aggrieved Thereby, The Assessee Filed Further Appeals Before

1 of 2 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4305-4306 of 2002 PETITIONER: Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat RESPONDENT: Surat City Gymkhana DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/2008 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4305-4306 OF 2002 The respondent-assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(23) of the Income