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

40. We shall now consider the effect of insertion of provisos to Section 10(23- C)(vi) vide the Finance (No. 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

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

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 or religious purposes.— (5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall be the following, namely:— (i) investment in savings

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

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

40 defines it as “a thing punishable by this Code”, read with Section 43 which defines ‘illegal’ as being applicable to “everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action”. It is therefore clear that Explanation 1 contains within its ambit all such activities which are illegal/prohibited by law and/or

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

DR.B.N.HOSPITAL & N.HOSPITAL RES.CENTRE vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

The appeals stand allowed with no order as to costs

Trust registered with the Charity Commissioner. It runs full fledged Multi Speciality Hospital in Mumbai. On 1st March, 1988, Government of India issued a Notification No 64 of 1988 exempting import of equipments by hospitals from payment of customs duty on fulfillment of conditions prescribed therein. We quote hereinbelow the said Notification: “In exercise of the powers conferred