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

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

charitable purposes as defined under Section 2(15) of 1961 Act and is available to trust or institution or society. Therefore, interpretation of Section 10(23C) of 1961 Act cannot be read in place of provisions of Section 12AA of 1961 Act. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. New Noble Educational Society Vs. The Chief Commissioner

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(23C) if they carry on commercial activities. The assessee is not an entity, whose purpose is advancement of any other object of general public utility. The assessee is engaged in preservation of environment, which is charitable purpose as per Section 2 (15). Therefore, it is submitted that the proviso below 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

10 of 20 or, as the case may be, institution, and separate books of account are maintained by such trust or institution in respect of such business.” 16. The question whether sub-section (4A) would apply even to a case where a business was held under trust was answered in the negative in several authoritative pronouncements starting from the judgment

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

24. In other words, the order, which can be modified or rescinded by applying Section 21, has to be either executive or legislative in nature whereas the order, which the CIT is required to pass under Section 12A of the Act, is neither legislative nor an executive order but it is a "quasi judicial order". It is for this reason

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

10,97,950/- 21. The entire emphasis of the revenue is on the fact that the assessee-Trust had earned profits by selling plots. This itself cannot be a ground for denying the benefit under Section 11 of the Act, especially when it is not disputed that the selling of plots and premises by the trust is only incidental

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

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

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

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

24) ofthe Act to include profits and gains, dividends, voluntary payment received by trust, etc. It may be noted that profits and gains are generally used in terms of business or profession as provided u/s. 28. The word " income ", therefore, is a much wider term than the expression profits and gains of business or profession ". Net receipt after deducting

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

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

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

24. The decision of the Joint APLs dated 19th July, 2019 was challenged on several grounds which had not been dealt with in the impugned order namely, that re-investigation to the extent of the estate was unwarranted; the decision (APO NOS. 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96 AND 98 OF 2020) REPORTABLE Page

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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

TRUST, (REGD.) NO.33, CHALAKERE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANASWADI POST, 42 BANGALORE-560 043, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE-CUM-SECRETARY, V.VENKATARAMA REDDY ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGLAORE-560 001, REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24. P.W.1 is none other than the husband of second claimant and father of the deceased-Smitha. He is not the direct eye witness to the accident. P.W.2, Dr. P.Laskhmana Rao, who is an Ophthalmologist and practicing Doctor in the name and style of   9  Modern Eye Hospital and Research Centre, Poga Thopta, Nellore. PW.2 is not the eye witness