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

b) of the proviso deals with a case of business which is not vested in trust for religious or charitable purposes within the meaning of the substantive clause of section 4(3)(i).” 17. Thus, if a property is held under trust, and such property is a business, the case would fall under Section 11(4) and not under Section

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

charitable institutions should not work only for a particular religious community or caste. Provisions of section 13(1)(b) are as under:- 13(1). Nothing contained in section 11 [or 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

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 and 13 are complied in this case hence the claim of exemption of the assessee company is not entertainable. (16). Membership of the assessee company: Vide para

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

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 purpose or religious purpose is exempted from the total income to the extent to which such income is applied to charitable or religious purpose in India

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

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

charitable purpose, it would automatically become taxable and the assessee would not be entitled to exemption. But, on the contrary, without there being a finding of violation of Section 13 of the Act, an inference is drawn on an alleged receipt of donation and consequently, the allegation is made that there is a violation of Section 13(1

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

b enefrt/ exemption under Section 1 1 of the Act' tt is pertinent to rote that Section 13 (1)(d) as amended by the Finance Act' 1983' P riovides ttrat the income of any 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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

B) SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED: 20/02/2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS NO. ITA NO. 687/BNG/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, AS SOUGHT FOR IN THIS APPEAL, AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY S. SUJATHA J. DELIVERED

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

B&R) for public use. (n) Making payment of street light bills for various schemes of trust per year (free of cost). (o) Grant of Rs.1.25 Lakhs to “Deaf and dumb school” Bathinda vide Resolution No.11, dated 14.04.2007 for the welfare of such handicap students. (p) Land reserved for “Yatri Niwas” in Bathinda near to New Bus stand

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1)(aa) of the Act and to the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. As already submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant authority is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the KUDA 1987, the object of the appellant authority is planning and promoting and securing the development of Hubli Dharwad Urban area

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

Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Inforaise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

12 of the Constitution of India. To examine the above argument, one may notice relevant sections as quoted by the learned counsel: “ 23: Powers of trustee: (1) The trustee of every charitable or religious institution or endowment shall administer its affairs, manage its properties and apply its funds in accordance with the terms of the trust, the usage

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

B S SOPARKAR  for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA   Date : 17/02/2020   ORAL JUDGMENT   (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is at the instance of the Revenue and is directed against Page 1 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT the order

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

1) by the Income Tax Officer, Mandya. The case was selected for scrutiny in accordance with the scrutiny guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Notice under Section 143(2) was issued and served on the assessee on 23.08.2007. In response to the same, the Internal Auditor has appeared and represented the case and produced various documents