GANGABAI CHARITIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

charitable purposes. We are satisfied that on a proper construction of the trust deed it does not meet the requirements of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. We entirely agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein. Mr. Prasaran invited our attention to paragraphs

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

28, 1963. Probate of the will was granted on April 5, 1963. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12 Immovable properties mentioned in the will were transferred in October, 1963 and February, 1964. By February, 1964 all the payments as devised by the will were made to respective legatees. On June 19, 1963 an application was filed

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

28 Page 29 JUDGMENT rescinding the notification or withdrawing the approval to such fund or institution or trust or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution and to the Assessing Officer;] Section 11. Income from property held for charitable

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 (TDS), KANPUR vs. CANARA BANK

The appeals are dismissed

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

charitable) may   property   be   held   for   their   purposes otherwise than by virtue of a contract between the members for the time being. ” 13. “Corporation   aggregate”,   has   further   been   defined   by Halsbury's   Laws   of   England,   Fifth   Edition,   Vol.   24   to   the following effect: "312.   Meaning   of   'Corporation   aggregate'.   A corporation   aggregate   has   been   defined   as   a collection of individuals united

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

Charitable Trust v. State of Haryana & Ors.4;  Kailash Nath Agarwal  & Ors.  v.  Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of U.P. Ltd. & Anr.5; and Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd.6.  The judgment relied on by the learned ASG in the case of  Jalkal Vibhag Nagar Nigam and Others3 would not render any assistance to support the case of the revenue

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

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