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

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

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) was approved], considered provisions of Section 10(23C) and not Section

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

charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India. There is no exhaustive definition of the words “property held under trust” in the Act; however, sub-section (4) says that for the purposes of Section 11, the words “property held under trust” “includes a business undertaking so held”. Sub-section

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

10 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT directions that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institutions.” Shall for the purpose of section 11 deemed to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

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

10 (23C)(vi) of the Act as well as Section 11 (4A) of the Act and the law as examined in Pinegrove and Queen’s Educational Society’s cases (supra), it reached to the following conclusion:- 76. The conclusions of this court are summarized as follows: (a) It is held that the requirement of the charitable institution, society or trust

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

10. The Trust filed appeal challenging the order of CIT and the Tribunal. This Court in the appeal filed by the assessee-Trust vide order dated 06.08.2014 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to it for deciding the issue afresh, keeping in view the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act as amended

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

trust was for benefit of only Agrawal community, application for registration under section 12AA should be dismissed. Gowri Ashram – (2013) 36 taxman.com (Madras)/2013) 217 taxman 97 (Madras)/ (2013) 356 ITR 328 (Madras) – Section 2(15) read with section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Charitable purpose(Objects of general public utility)- Whether where assessee society was formed with

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

The appeal is disposed of

Section 80IB(10) of the Act can be claimed by an undertaking involved in developing and housing project, irrespective of it being a charitable trust

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Ascend Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 8/21 In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act emphasizes that the income of the Institution has to be from activities which are solely educational and not commercial activities, if the income has to be exempted from tax. This Court was reiterating the settled legal position in this regard as explained by the Supreme Court of India in Aditanar Educational Institution

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature

M/s. PCL-STICCO Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands dismissed

charitable Institution under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. An objection came to be raised interalia that the Gujarat Maritime Board was claiming exemption as a ‘local authority’ under Sectio 10(20) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 and therefore, it could not claim any exemption by having the Board registered under Section 12A of the Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities of the previous order. He contended that the respondent-assesses may be carrying out an object of general public utility but the carrying on its activity is in the nature of trade, commerce or business and does not come within the exception (1) or (2) above and therefore, in view

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

charitable institution or hospital, within one year; (b) in any other case, within six months, from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been levied or charged or which has been short-levied or part paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause

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

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

charitable, and linked with the well being of the assessee’s employees, the expenditure was correctly ITA Nos.278, 807, 1578 & 312/2010 Page 10 allowed under section 37(1). The AO and the CIT had disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s.R.A.K.Ceramics India Private Limited

Appeals are allowed; and

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

10. Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act. 11. The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon

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

10 and Principal Commissioner of Income' Tax-III, Bangalore vs' M/s.\[ripro Limited (Civil Appeal No.1449 of 2022, dated 11..O7.2022\. 12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the rercord. Section 1 1 (1) of the Act manclates that any income derived from the property held under the trust wholly for charitable

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

CHARITABLE TRUST Respondent Through Mr. Ajay VohrawithMs. Kavita Jha, Mr. Vaibhav Kulkami and Ms. Bhoomika Chaudhary, Advocates. + ITA 336/2013 (AssessmentYear 2009-10) DIRCTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) Appellant Through Mr. N.P. Sahni with ]^. Nitin Gulati and Mr. P. Roychaoudhari, Advocates. versus M/S INTERNATIONAL GOUDIYA VEDANTA TRUST Respondent Through Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ram Avtar Bansal