BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

14 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 10(29)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi589Karnataka511Mumbai487Chennai287Bangalore274Jaipur151Pune134Ahmedabad99Hyderabad87Kolkata74Chandigarh70Lucknow43Amritsar35Indore28Rajkot26Cochin24Surat24Cuttack21Nagpur19Agra17Allahabad17Calcutta16Visakhapatnam14Telangana14SC11Jodhpur7Raipur6Kerala5Varanasi5Rajasthan4Patna3Dehradun2Andhra Pradesh2Punjab & Haryana2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A11Section 10(20)10Exemption6Section 2605Section 260A4Section 10(29)4Section 2(15)4Section 253Charitable Trust3Section 115

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

ITTA/251/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

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

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for
Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

29) was deleted and an Explanation was added to Section 10(20) mentioning Panchayats, Municipalities, Municipal Committees and Cantonment Boards alone to be a ‘local authority’, for the purpose of Section 10(20). As a result, from the assessment year 2003-2004 onwards, AMC could not claim exemption as a ‘local authority’. They, therefore, made an application

2
Revision u/s 2632
Addition to Income2

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

ITTA/318/2008HC Telangana01 Mar 2011

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

For Respondent: Ms. K.Lalitha, Standing Counsel for
Section 10(20)Section 10(29)Section 12ASection 260ASection 4Section 4(1)

29) was deleted and an Explanation was added to Section 10(20) mentioning Panchayats, Municipalities, Municipal Committees and Cantonment Boards alone to be a ‘local authority’, for the purpose of Section 10(20). As a result, from the assessment year 2003-2004 onwards, AMC could not claim exemption as a ‘local authority’. They, therefore, made an application

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

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

ITTA/627/2015HC Telangana02 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 260Section 80G(5)

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

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITTA/161/2016HC Telangana27 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

Section 10(20) of the Act. 28. The above-said decisions do not advance the case of the revenue. 29. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Tribunal has not followed its earlier decision in Jammu Development Authority's case (supra) also does not support the case of the department. 30. The decision of the Tribunal

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

ITTA/346/2015HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 11Section 260Section 32

29 provides that income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with section 30 to section 43C, That, section 32(1) of the Act provides for depreciation in respect of building, plant and machinery owned by the assessee and used for the business purposes. It further provides for deduction subject to section 34. In that matter

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

ITTA/441/2013HC Telangana24 Sept 2013

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 - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

ITTA/449/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

29 of the Income-tax Act. However, the issue that requires consideration is when the expenditure incurred for acquisition of depreciable assets itself is treated as application of income for charitable purposes under section ll(l)(a) of the Act, should not the cost of such assets to be treated as nil for the assessee and in that situation depreciation

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

ITTA/11/2023HC Telangana27 Jul 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 115

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

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

ITTA/190/2013HC Telangana03 Jul 2013

29(3)(c) has to function under the trustees or Trust Board. Though appointed by the government, the Executive Officer is under the control of the Trust Board, and that they are not under the control of the Commissioner. He places reliance on Sections 6, 14, 15 of the said Act. All the learned counsel, in unison, placed reliance

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

ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

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

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

ITTA/293/2014HC Telangana31 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

For Appellant: SRI S' RAVIFor Respondent: Ms' K' MAMATA
Section 151Section 260Section 260A

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

ITTA/111/2012HC Telangana26 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 20Section 25Section 30

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

ITTA/240/2007HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10  time of accident, he was going to attend the calls of nature and witnessed the accident from a distance of 50 feet. He observed the car was proceeding from Bangalore towards Devanagiri and meanwhile KSRTC bus was coming from Devanagiri towards Bangalore side. At that time, the car was proceeding on the left side of the road

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

ITTA/622/2015HC Telangana01 Jun 2016

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