Commissioner of Income Taxd vs. M/sA.,Venjkatarao AND Others

Inasmuch as all that is required is for the settler of the trust to declare that the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

additional reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Thanthi Trust (supra). 15. Section 11(1) of the Act grants exemption to the income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

The Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

charitable institutions. The legal interpretation which has continued since 1984, if disturbed and implemented, would not appropriately resolved. Consistency and certainty is more appropriate. 16. The equally plausible and consistent interpretation of clause (a) of Section 11(1) of the Act is that income derived fi:om property must be calculated as per the principles of the Act. The said

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

addition of Rs.2,53,21,438/-. This reasoned finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same. “ 17. The Appellate Tribunal took the view that the assessee company could be said to be carrying on the charitable activities, as the main purpose of the assessee company is to preserve the environment. The fact that

AP State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

additions made by the assessing officer were directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the assessee was partly allowed. 7. The assessee thereupon Iiled an Appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by a common order dated 3l.LO.2OO7 lras inter alia held that the investment made by the assessee in the joint ventures would fall

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Pennar Industries Limited,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

trust and its activities as genuine and the objectives have been found charitable. These objectives were found charitable at the time of initial registration. The additions made to the income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

ADDITIONAL COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE- 2, MYSORE, INL THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T The assessee is a charitable trust

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

additional court fee is not supplied within the period given by the Court, and where the Digitally Signed By:SARIKA BHAMOO VERMA Signing Date:19.08.2023 15:54:19 Signature Not Verified C.R.P. 11/2023 Page 8 of 14 suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Rejection of the plaint in exercise of the powers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD

The appeal is allowed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Income Tax v. The Guru Harkishan Medical Trust [ITA 1359/2009, decided on 04.03.2014] which inter alia held that the creation of the Trust was illegal and such illegality would not fasten any tax liability upon R-2. It nevertheless held that the remedy for the present appellant to challenge the order of dissolution of the Trust would be exercised

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Goldstar Holdings AND Industries Limited, Hyderabad.

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) (224) ITR 310 (SC) followed in American Hotel and Lodging Association Educational Institute v. Central Board of Direct Taxes, 2008 (301) ITR 86 (SC). The decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Pinegrove International Charitable Trust

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, RANGE- 17, BANGALORE. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year

M/S NATIONAL ACADEMY OF CONSTRUCTION vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

addition to, holding of exhibitions, etc. The income of which, or the profrt earned by the joint venture also being shared with the appellants to some extent also rvould lead to the contravention of the object, purpose and mission of the society with which, it was established. 21 . The appellant contended that the amounts lying in the corpus was from

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

CHARITABLE TRUST CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI P.K.R.MENON(SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-09-2014, ALONG WITH ITA. 134/2014, ITA. 135/2014, ITA. 136/2014, ITA. 137/2014, ITA. 139/2014, ITA. 140/2014 & ITA. 142/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s.Mold-Tek Technologies Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

additional costs. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakhi and Bros. (supra) held as under: The expression "business" though extensively used a word of indefinite import, in taxing statutes it is used in the sense of an occupation, or profession which occupies the time, attention and labour of a person, normally with

Commissioner of Income-tax-VI vs. Sri Premchand Kothari

Bench: The Itat Against The Respondent-Assessee For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2007-08 Till 2012-13.

Charitable Trust v. Union of India (2010) 327 ITR 73 (P & H). Reference was again made to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Aditanar Educational Institution v. Additional CIT (1997) 224 ITR 310 (SC). 5. In the impugned order, the ITAT has concurred with the CIT(A) and that the conclusion was based on the various decisions

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI METTAM PENCHALA NAIDU

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

charitable trust registered as such by the CIT, Orissa, under s.12A of the Act. For the assessment year 1985-86, it filed return disclosing loss of Rs. 15,76,880, before the ITO, Ward A, Circle II, Cuttack. The loss was arrived at after making provision for liabilities incurred, taking into account amounts receivable but not received. The Assessing Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax III,. vs. Sri Sudhir Sanghi

Bench: This Court That The 1St Assessment Order Of The Ito Was Passed On 28.03.1988, Which Was Challenged Before The Leaned Cit (A) & The Same Was Dismissed On 28.11.1988. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Itat, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, Which Was Dismissed On 19.01.1990. Thereafter, By Order Dated 13.12.1990 Passed In A Misc. Application, The Order Dated 19.01.1990 Was Recalled & The Matter Was Heard Afresh. Again On 10.05.1991, Learned Tribunal Decided The Matter & Allowed The Exemption To The Assessee. The Revenue Filed Writ Petition Before This Court Challenging The Rectification Order Dated 13.12.1990. This Court On 02.12.1991 Allowed The Writ Petition & Quashed The Recalling Order Dated 13.12.1990 As Well As Its Substantive Order Dated

charitable trust registered as such by the CIT, Orissa, under s.12A of the Act. For the assessment year 1985-86, it filed return disclosing loss of Rs. 15,76,880, before the ITO, Ward A, Circle II, Cuttack. The loss was arrived at after making provision for liabilities incurred, taking into account amounts receivable but not received. The Assessing Officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Sri Ashven Datla

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Trust. The predecessor of the defendants Late Tara Chand was inducted as tenant at Bhawan No.9, Advertand Marg, Rishikesh on property nos. 131 to 133 on 01.07.1956 on rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per month, as also on property nos. 135 & 136 on 01.06.1973 on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. The rent receipt

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Inforaise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

addition, on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the letter addressed by the Commissioner, Endowments Department, to the learned Government Pleader bearing No. Lr.In.RC.No.U1/Courts/13703/2012, dated 20.07.2018 was placed on record. The essence of the said letter is that the 2005 Act cannot be made applicable to the details regarding rituals that are being performed in the temples