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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

b) or sub-section (1). In view of the above discussion it is apparent that the trust has started charitable activities but these are for the benefit of a particular religious community i.e. ‘Jain’ which is in violation of provisions of section 13

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

B" Hyderabad in l.T.A No. 326 lHydl 2000 ( Assessment Year 1,996 - 1997 ) dated 31-10-2007 preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) -lV , Hyderabad dated 04-02-2000 in Appeal No. 333/lTO.4 (2) I CIT (A) -lV i 99- 2000 preferred against the order of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward -40 Hyderabad dated

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

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

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

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

13. In present case, the Commissioner of Income Tax, while cancelling the registration under Section 12AA of 1961 Act vide order dated 16.03.2010 (Annexure A-2), had recorded that (1) respondent-Trust is generating surplus since 2002-2003 to 2007-2008 and (2) that the Trust has not waived fee of large number of students as only

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

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

13. We have considered the submissions. Before we advert to the facts of the case, it would be apposite to quote Sections 12A and 12AA (3) of the Act for answering the questions of law, as noted above:- “12A. [Conditions for applicability of sections 11 and 12] (1) The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply

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

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

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

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 32 for the same or any subsequent previous year." 13. The language of the sub-clause

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

13. In the appeal, six substantial questions of law referred earlier have been claimed to be arising for consideration but the main issues involved in the present appeal are :- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the activities of the assessee are covered under Section 2(15) of the Act as amended by Finance

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Sri Ashven Datla

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Trust. The predecessor of the defendants Late Tara Chand was inducted as tenant at Bhawan No.9, Advertand Marg, Rishikesh on property nos. 131 to 133 on 01.07.1956 on rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per month, as also on property nos. 135 & 136 on 01.06.1973 on rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month. The rent receipt

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.,

trust, the usage of the institution or endowment and all lawful directions which a competent authority may issue in respect thereof and as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with such affairs, fund and properties if they were of his own. (2) A trustee shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to exercise

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