Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

charitable trust’ under Section 12A of the Act. The relevant observations are as follows. For the purposes of this section ‘property held under trust’ includes a business undertaking so held, and where a claim is made that the income

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

charitable trust’ under Section 12A of the Act. The relevant observations are as follows. For the purposes of this section ‘property held under trust’ includes a business undertaking so held, and where a claim is made that the income

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

business income of charitable trust also has to be computed in the same manner as provided under section 29 of the Income

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

charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity, unless

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DIST vs. V DWARAKANATH REDDY, CHITTOOR

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

business ventures. The creation and incorporation of the trust under section 3 is for a public purpose. We have no doubt whatsoever that the activities of the trust fall within the meaning of the words " charitable purpose" in Section 2(15). 82. Whether the mandate of the Act is followed by such a trust is a different matter. The facts

The Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd.,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

income and expenditure. g. It is held that wherever registration of trust or charities is obligatory under state or local laws, the concerned trust, society, other institution etc. seeking approval under Section 10(23C) should also comply with provisions of such state laws. This would enable the Commissioner or concerned authority to ascertain the genuineness of the trust, society

Commissioner of Income Tax-1, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter To Be Referred As “The Act”) Against The Order Dated 16.07.2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-A, Chandigarh (Hereinafter To Be Referred As “The Itat”) In Ita No. 510/Chd/2010 - M/S Young Scholars Educational Society, Barnala Vs Cit, Patiala, Whereby The Order Dated 26.03.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala (Hereinafter To Be Referred As “The Commissioner”) Was Quashed & The Varinder Singh 2024.05.13 10:09 I Attest To The Accuracy & Authencity Of This Order/Judgment

income and expenditure. (g) It is held that wherever registration of trust or charities is obligatory under state or local laws, the concerned trust, society, other institution etc. seeking approval under Section 10(23C) should also comply with provisions of such state laws. This would enable the Commissioner or concerned authority to ascertain the genuineness of the trust, society

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

The appeal is disposed of

Trust engaged in the business of construction and real estate activities and is registered under Section 12AA of the Act on 07.12.2007. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment year 2009-10 and declared total turnover to the tune of Rs.194.24 Crores and a sum of Rs.57.39 Crores was claimed as profit. The assessee declared the income

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

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), in purported exercise of the powers under s. 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The background facts are as under : Prajatantra Prachar Samity (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a public charitable trust registered as such by the CIT, Orissa, under s.12A

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

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (in short 'the Tribunal'), in purported exercise of the powers under s. 254(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 2. The background facts are as under : Prajatantra Prachar Samity (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'), is a public charitable trust registered as such by the CIT, Orissa, under s.12A

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business. At this stage, decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust (supra) is required to be referred to. In the case before the Division Bench, the assessee Trust Sabarmati Ashram Gaushala Trust was engaged in the activity of breeding milk cattle; to improve the quality of cows and oxen and other

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

Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. Therefore, it had been meant that in computing the income from those assets in the subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Therefore

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 612] , where this Court, in para 11, observed thus : (SCC p. 714, para 11) “11. This position was explained by this Court in Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557] , in which, while considering Order 7 Rule

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

business and therefore,  financially, he is sound and also is paying income tax.   After relying  upon the decision rendered in case of Rajya Tulsibhai Patel Vs. Benar  Enterprise and others reported in AIR 1988 Gujarat 42, it is submitted by  learned advocate Ms. Mehta that averments made in plaint para Nos.3  and 4 amounts to sufficient compliance with requirements

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Sri.G.Sanjay Chowdary

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

charitable purpose if it involves carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or any activity of rendering 6 any services in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention of the income from such activity unless

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

income, this Court is satisfied that the Tribunal’s order on this aspect does not call for any interference. 14. Question No.3 - Whether the expenditure allowed by the impugned order of the Tribunal was justified in respect of the donations made by the assessee and claimed as business expenses under Section-37 (1)? The assessee had claimed expenditure on account

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Ms. Poornima Datla

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

business of Timber and also sold “Balli” and paid tax @ 8% on such “Balli” whereas according to the Assessing Officer “Balli” being timber was taxable @ 10%, accordingly, issued notice while in some of the cases on the basis of Audit objection, notice u/Sec.37 was given but in some of the cases regular assessment has been made. The assessee-respondent contended

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Charitable societies and trusts are not part of the estate of the testatrix which are managed by the respective managing committees and trustees of the societies or trusts. The companies are separate legal entities controlled by their Board of Directors and the affairs of the estate of the testatrix do not include the right to control the affairs