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

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

trust wholly for charitable purposes”. Under Section 11(4) the expression “property held under trust” includes a business undertaking so held

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

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 or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;” 33. S.2(15) of the 1961 Act::- Charitable purpose, defined (upto 31-3-2009).- According to section 2(15), the expression “charitable purpose” has been defined by way of an inclusive definition so as to include- -relief to the poor, -education, -medical relief, and -the advancement

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Charitable Trust derived from building, plant and machinery and furniture was liable to be computed in normal commercial manner although the Trust may not be carrying on any business and the assets in respect whereof depreciation is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases, section 32 of the Income Tax Act providing for depreciation for computation

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

4 Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that assessee - Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Education Trust is an Educational Trust claiming to be engaged in charitable activities by providing financial assistance to poor and needy students by way of fee concession. It filed an application under Section 12A of the Act and the same was registered by the Commissioner

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

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

4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently it is noticed that— SUNIL

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

4. So far as A.Y.2011-2012, all three authorities namely Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have denied the benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 5. Sri. Chandrashekar for the assessee, adverting to Section 12(1) of the Act submitted that any voluntary contribution received by the Trust for charitable

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

section 13(1)(b) of the Act.?” 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a charitable trust registered for the community and the exemption (2 of 11) [ITA-163/2012] was sought under 12AA. The CIT (A) has rejected the same. However, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal. 4

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

11(1) clause 'a' of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For the sake of convenience, the said clause is reproduced below:- "Section11(1) in The Income-Tax Act, 1995 (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total income of the previous year ofthe person in receipt ofthe income

Samaj Seva Nidhi, vs. ACIT [Inv] circle-II

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

4. (2008) 303 ITR 111 (Delhi) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO I.T.T.A. No.67 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao) This appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), against the order in I.T.A.No.133/V/1997 passed

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

4,72,723/- 2004-05 80,346/- 2005-06 10,13,765/- 2006-07 36,39,146/- 2007-08 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT the Delhi High Court that "thus, if the dominant activity of the assessee was not business, then any incidental or ancillary activity would also not fall within the definition of business." In para 64, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under: “64. It is not necessary

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

trust or charitable institution is invested or deposited before first of March, 1983, otherwise thzrn in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in Section 11 (5), continue to remain so invested or deposited after 3C.11.1983, the assessee sha1l not be entitled to the benefit of exemption. 10 (2018) 9 SCC 1 10 13. In the instant

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Trust for seeking exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the activities of the said Board. In the present case also (3 of 4) [ITA-389/2011] learned counsel for the appellant had sought to contend that since the agricultural produce marketing committees, the assessees herein, have been claiming the benefit of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and learned counsel for the respondent-assessee and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue has raised a two fold contention. He contended that sub-section(15) of Section 2 of the Act defines “charitable purpose” to include, inter alia, advancement of any other object of general

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

charitable trust registered as such by the CIT, Orissa, under s.12A of the Act. For the assessment year 1985-86, it filed return disclosing loss of Rs. 15,76,880, before the ITO, Ward A, Circle II, Cuttack. The loss was arrived at after making provision for liabilities incurred, taking into account amounts receivable but not received. The Assessing Officer

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

charitable trust registered as such by the CIT, Orissa, under s.12A of the Act. For the assessment year 1985-86, it filed return disclosing loss of Rs. 15,76,880, before the ITO, Ward A, Circle II, Cuttack. The loss was arrived at after making provision for liabilities incurred, taking into account amounts receivable but not received. The Assessing Officer

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