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

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

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

20. Learned counsel for appellant had argued that both the provisions, one under Section 10(23C) of 1961 Act and provisions under Section 12AA of 1961 Act are different in their scope and applicability. We are in agreement with contention raised by learned counsel for appellant that scope of Section 10(23C) of 1961 Act and Section 12AA

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

trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and section 13 shall apply accordingly. Technically, none of the provisions contained in amended section 2(15), 11, 12 and 13 are complied in this case hence the claim of exemption of the assessee company is not entertainable. (16). Membership of the assessee company: Vide para

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

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

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

The appeal is disposed of

charitable trust. It is also argued that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. It is also urged that decision relied upon by the revenue in the case of AMITABH BACHAN supra does not support the case of the revenue as in the aforesaid case, the assessee had withdrawn the claim

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

trust. However, for the application of the proviso, what is necessary is that the entity should be involved in carrying on activities in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering services in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration. In such a situation, the nature

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20% of the receipts of the 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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”), has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) Revise the impugned order (Annexure P/1) under Sec.115 of the CPC, 1908 dated 26.09.22 of the Hon'ble ADJ of the South East Saket District Court in Computer Junction vs Gisil Designs (CS DJ 754/20169287116) whereby

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

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 regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

Charitable Society represented by its  Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC  706.. 12. Normally, in the contract relating to immovable property, time  cannot be essence of the contract and time stipulated for performance  even if expressly read and shown to be essence requires to be read as not  being essence of the contract and subsequently

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

20%. Accordingly, the assessee claims that the application of income would include Rs.10,000/- which is to be allowed as depreciation as to this extent, the asset purchased has depreciated. In other words, Rs.60,000/- is to be treated as application of money for the purpose of clause 'a' to Section v.. V 11(1). 6. Initially we were

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

10. Noor Nagar, [ianjara Hrlis, Hyderabad - 500034. ...Ai']PE -LANT I\ND lisst. Director Of lncome Tax(Exemptions) - | , Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, llyderabad ..RESPONDENT |.T.T.A.M.P. NO. 305 0F 2014 Petition Under Section '151 of CPC praying for the aforesaid reasons s,urted in the accompanying affidavit filed therewith, the Horr'bie Court may be pleased to pass an order staying

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

charitable trust registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Shri Raghuveer Lal Ghai is Manager/Trustee/Power of Attorney Holder of the said 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

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

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

trusts and some of the trustees / Executive Officers of temples are heard together, as, they all, in essence, questioned either invocation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the 2005 Act’) with respect to their organizations or the circulars issued by the government directing the respective organizations to designate and constitute ‘Public Information Officers

The Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/S Srinivasa Resorts Limited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20. For the sake of convenience and better understanding, it is better to refer the parties as arrayed in MVOP. 21. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company/third respondent in MVOP contended that the accident occurred due to   8  rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No. KA.29/F 484 and hence the Insurance company