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 wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and section 13 shall apply accordingly. Technically, none of the provisions contained in amended section 2(15), 11, 12

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

12 ITR 385. The general provision under Section 4(3)(i) of the 1922 Act exempted income derived from property held under trust from taxation. However, section 4(3)(ia) provided that any income derived from a business carried on on behalf of a religious or charitable

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

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 for which

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

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

12. From plain reading of Section 12AA(3) of 1961 Act, it is apparent that registration can be cancelled when the Commissioner of Income Tax is satisfied that activities of Trust or Institution are not genuine and are not being carried out in accordance with objects of Trust or Institution as the case may be. The bare reading of Section

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

section 12] shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof. (a) Any part of the income from the property held under a trust for private religious purposes which does not ensure for the benefit of the public. b) In the case of a trust for charitable

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

charitable purpose within the meaning of amended Section 2(15) of the Act and the registration was cancelled vide order dated 20.07.2012. 9. Aggrieved of the order of cancellation, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal, the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2012. PANKAJ BAWEJA 2018.09.20 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document [HIGH

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

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 contributions made with a specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus of the Trust or institution) shall, for the purpose of Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12. The depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears to have understood the `income’ under section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

charitable trust’ is defined under section 2(15) of the Act. The activity of the respondent comes within the scope and ambit of the expression “the advancement of any other 18 object of general public utility”. The activity carried on by the respondent does not involve an activity which is in the nature of trade, commerce or business

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 to be applied. In para 6, 7, 8 and 12

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

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

12. We would like to reproduce Section 35 (2B)(c). "Section 35(2B)(a) (b) (c) Where a deduction allowed for any previous year under this sub-section in respect of expenditure represented wholly or partly by an asset, no deduction shall be allowed in respect ofthat asset under [clause (ii) of sub-section (1)] of section

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

12. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the rercord. Section 1 1 (1) of the Act manclates that any income derived from the property held under the trust wholly for charitable

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

Charitable Society represented by its  Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC  706.. 12. Normally, in the contract relating to immovable property, time  cannot be essence of the contract and time stipulated for performance  even if expressly read and shown to be essence requires to be read as not  being essence of the contract and subsequently

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 FOUNDATION reported in (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC). Therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a batch of cases on the very same question of law, which also arose in the case of very same Assessee herein. Therein, the question of law considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was, when the Income Tax Officer states that full expenditure

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

charitable or religious trust or irrstitution will not be entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and I 2, if certain conditions stipulated therein are not complied with ' Andhra Pradesh Act and also has ::12

Commissioner of Income-tax-VI vs. Sri Premchand Kothari

Bench: The Itat Against The Respondent-Assessee For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2007-08 Till 2012-13.

12 AA of the Act, claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act on the basis that it was carrying on the charitable activity of imparting education. While denying the said exemption, the AO came to the conclusion that the Assessee had been charging substantial fees from the students with a view to making profit and that the imparting