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

trust. In this view of the matter the benefit of Section 11 of the Act was denied and the assessment was completed on a total income of `62,86,390/- consisting of the profits of the Katha business. 7. In the appeal filed against the assessment, the assessee contended that it was a public charitable

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. M/s. Biological E. Ltd.,

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

7. Learned counsel for appellant has defended order of cancellation passed by Commissioner of Income Tax on the ground that respondent-Trust was found involved in activities other than charitable activities as defined in Section 2 (15) of 1961 Act and was generating huge surplus since assessment year 2002-2003 to 2007-2008. Learned counsel further argued that since case

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 or religious purposes, (not being 1 Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) 2 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 7

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

7 of 11) [ITA-163/2012] found by the learned Tribunal that one of the conditions necessary for issuance of notice under Section 148, being under statement of income of the assessee, is not fulfilled. It has been held, that in order to bring an item within the purview of Section 147, it is of utmost importance, that

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

trust to determine the income for the purpose of application under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. This would reduce the possibility of revenue leakage which may be a cause for generation of black v; money," 6. From the above, what is clear is that the Central Board also confirms the view taken by us that after allowing cost

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

7. In view of amendment, a show cause notice was issued on 20.06.2012 to the assessee-Trust to show cause as to why registration granted under Section 12AA of the Act, be not cancelled. 8. The assessee filed a detailed reply to the notice. In the reply, the works and objects of the assessee-Trust were mentioned. It was further

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11 of the Act. While holding that the activities of the assessee trust still can be said to be for charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act and same cannot be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce or business for which proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is required

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 and therefore, in view

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

11 and 13 of the Act, it is evident that the Legislature did not contemplate the benefit of denial of Section 1 1 of the Act, to the entire income and only the income from an investment made in violation of Section 13 (i) (d) of the Act is liable to tax. The aforesaid view l-ias been taken

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

charitable or religious purposes. 7. So far as Section 40(a)(ia) is concerned, the Tribunal once again relied on the judgment of St. 6 Anne’s case and also on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) VS. GIRIDHARILAL SHEWNARAIN TANTIA TRUST reported in 199 ITR 215 and the judgment

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

7. The facts relevant for decision on the present appeal ane that the appellants herein is a ,Society, unrler the Andhra pradesh (now Telangana areal Public Societies Registration Act. The sarne was registered under Sectiot L2-A, and arso had the exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. 8 ::3:: PSK,J & I,NA,J ITTA

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

The appeal is disposed of

7 the provisions of Section 263 of the Act in the fact situation of the case and therefore, the Tribunal could not have dealt with the merits of the matter and should not have set aside the order on merits passed under Section 263 of the Act. It is also urged that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that