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.

7 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 119(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka446Mumbai217Delhi203Ahmedabad89Hyderabad83Chennai80Bangalore76Chandigarh49Pune45Jaipur43Kolkata40Agra17Calcutta17Lucknow17Visakhapatnam17Indore16Allahabad16Cuttack12Surat11Jodhpur8Guwahati8Telangana7Rajkot7Dehradun5Patna5Raipur4Nagpur4Jabalpur3Cochin3Amritsar3Varanasi2Rajasthan2SC1Panaji1Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 12A13Section 10(20)10Section 260A4Section 10(29)4Section 373Section 4(1)2Section 42Exemption2

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)

Trust wholly for charitable purpose? To answer this question, the Division Bench of M.P.High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (1) referred to the various provisions of the M.P.Act, and the earlier case law including the Gujarat Maritime Board and held that market committees fulfil all the requirements of Section

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)

Trust wholly for charitable purpose? To answer this question, the Division Bench of M.P.High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (1) referred to the various provisions of the M.P.Act, and the earlier case law including the Gujarat Maritime Board and held that market committees fulfil all the requirements of Section

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-1, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

ITTA/21/2011HC Telangana04 Mar 2011

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

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

2(15) of the Act but was engaged in trade and commerce with a motive to generate profits under the garb of education. It relied on the interpretation of charitable purpose and finding that imparting education per se is not a charitable activity. He proceeded to cancel the registration vide order dated 02.03.2010. 7. The respondent-assessee preferred appeal before

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

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Ms. Poornima Datla

ITTA/327/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 37

2. The Brief facts of the leading case bearing STR No.327 of 2008 (ACTO Vs. M/s. Raj Timber Mart) are taken into consideration. The assessee is engaged in the business of Timber and also sold “Balli” and paid tax @ 8% on such “Balli” whereas according to the Assessing Officer “Balli” being timber was taxable @ 10%, accordingly, issued notice while