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

5 of 20 Manufacturers, (1980) 121 ITR 1. It was further urged that the amendment to sub- section (4A) of Section 11 w. e. f. assessment year 1992-93 made the provisions more liberal and that having regard to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Thanthi Trust (supra) the assessee should be granted exemption under Section 11

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

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

11 and 12 shall apply to a trust or institution, where the application is made under— (a) sub-clause (i) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1), from the assessment year from which such trust or institution was earlier granted registration; (b) sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1), from the first of the assessment year

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 5/21 Charitable Trust. It was registered as a Public Charitable Trust

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

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

charitable activity has been defined. While cancelling the registration under Section 12AA(3) of 1961 Act, reliance was placed upon judgment of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Children Book Trust, (1992) 3 SCC 390 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in SUNIL CHANDER 2026.02.27 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity

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

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

Charitable Trust reported in [2013] 355 ITR 280 wherein it has been held as under:- (5 of 11) [ITA-163/2012] “8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, but find no merit in the present appeals. As per Section

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

charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus ofthe trust for derivingthe income. The Board also appears to have understood the " income " u/s. 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No. 5-P (LXX-6) of 1968, dated July 19, 1968, reads: Where the trust derives income from house 8. property, interest

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

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

11(2) of the Act reads as follows: “Where eighty-five per cent of the income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) read with the Explanation to that sub- section is not applied, or is not deemed to have been applied, to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year

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

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

5. The definition of 'charitable purpose' u/s 2(15) of the Act was amended by Finance Act of 2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2009. 6. Amended Section 2(15) of the Act is quoted below:- “2(15) ‘charitable purpose’ includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment (including water heads, forests and wildlife) and preservations of monuments or places

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

11 of the Act' 196 1 in view of violation of section 1 I (5) of the Act, 1 96 1 ' ::lS:: I,SK.J & LNA I 30. The Dethi High Court in DIT (Dxempr,"r,,1,"!*))'r:::;::rt::: Trust,r deart with an issue of whefier the assessee violated Section t3(txcxii) read with Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT which are carrying on regular business from the scope of charitable purpose. The purpose of introducing the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act can be understood from the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister while introducing the Finance Bill 2008. The relevant extract to the Speech is as under : Charitable purpose includes relief

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 public utility. The said definition was amended by inclusion of a proviso with effect from 01.04.2009. According to the proviso, advancement

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 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