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

10 of 96 C/TAXAP/627/2015 JUDGMENT directions that they shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institutions.” Shall for the purpose of section 11 deemed to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes and the provisions of that section and section 13

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

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

10 of 20 or, as the case may be, institution, and separate books of account are maintained by such trust or institution in respect of such business.” 16. The question whether sub-section (4A) would apply even to a case where a business was held under trust was answered in the negative in several authoritative pronouncements starting from the judgment

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

trust was for benefit of only Agrawal community, application for registration under section 12AA should be dismissed. Gowri Ashram – (2013) 36 taxman.com (Madras)/2013) 217 taxman 97 (Madras)/ (2013) 356 ITR 328 (Madras) – Section 2(15) read with section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Charitable purpose(Objects of general public utility)- Whether where assessee society was formed with

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

trust or charitable institution is invested or deposited before first of March, 1983, otherwise thzrn in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in Section 11 (5), continue to remain so invested or deposited after 3C.11.1983, the assessee sha1l not be entitled to the benefit of exemption. 10 (2018) 9 SCC 1 10 13

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

The appeal is disposed of

10) of the Act in the light of the fact whether the assessee had applied the income for charitable purposes. However, the Tribunal held that Section 13(8) of the Act was incorporated with effect from 01.04.2009 and by virtue of Section 13(8) of the Act, the income of the assessee from developing housing project by virtue of Section

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

10. The Trust filed appeal challenging the order of CIT and the Tribunal. This Court in the appeal filed by the assessee-Trust vide order dated 06.08.2014 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to it for deciding the issue afresh, keeping in view the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act as amended

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 thereof has held as under : - Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 14/21 Xxxxxxx ……. 5.3.3 Further, the CBDT Circular No.5-P (LXX)-6 of 1968 cited by the assessee makes it clear that income should be understood in its commercial sense : in the case of trusts also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10(23C)(iv) because, in our view, the context requires such an interpretation. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves out an exception from the charitable purpose of advancement of any other object of general public utility and that exception is limited to activities in the nature

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Goldstar Holdings AND Industries Limited, Hyderabad.

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

13. Mr. Chimanka placed reliance on certain observations of this Court in its judgment dated 24th November 2011 in W.P.(C) No.2467 of 2011 (Xavier’s Institute of Management v. State of Orissa). The challenge in that petition was to an order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar (CCIT) refusing approval to the Institution under Section 10

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

charitable trust registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Shri Raghuveer Lal Ghai is Manager/Trustee/Power of Attorney Holder of the said 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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

10. Noor Nagar, [ianjara Hrlis, Hyderabad - 500034. ...Ai']PE -LANT I\ND lisst. Director Of lncome Tax(Exemptions) - | , Ayakar Bhavan, Basheer Bagh, llyderabad ..RESPONDENT |.T.T.A.M.P. NO. 305 0F 2014 Petition Under Section '151 of CPC praying for the aforesaid reasons s,urted in the accompanying affidavit filed therewith, the Horr'bie Court may be pleased to pass an order staying

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

10. Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act. 11. The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. It is also brought to our notice at the Bar that the judgment of this Court in the case of KIADB has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by order dated 27.04.015. 11. The detailed narration of facts and contentions would not call for reiteration

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

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

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

10 allowed under section 37(1). The AO and the CIT had disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with regard to the permissibility of the deduction and such being the case, relief of larger deduction as business expenditure could