Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

13. These deal with the income from property held for charitable or religious purposes. Section 11(1) and (5) as well Section 12A, to the extent relevant, read as under. 11. Income from property held for charitable or religious purposes.—(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 60 to 63, the following income shall not be included in the total

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

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

13 of 20 income under Section 11(1); secondly, there is a distinction between the objects of a trust and the powers given to the trustees to effectuate the purposes of the trust. The CIT (Appeals) also held for the assessment year 1992-93 that while the objects of the trust were certainly charitable, clauses 19 and 20 are mere

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

section 13(1)(b) of the Act.?” 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a charitable trust registered for the community and the exemption (2

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

charitable purposes. 13. Applying the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and with respect to the activities of the AUDA Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority under the provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning Act by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the activities of the assessee (AUDA) can be said

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

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. In the instant

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 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 - 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-I vs. Sri Ashven Datla

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist- plaintiff Punjab Sindh Kshetra Rishikesh instituted the aforesaid suit against defendant-Smt. Chunia Devi and others, inter alia, on the ground that revisionist/plaintiff is a 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2 is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against, the department. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 10/21 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid view taken by the Bombay High Court correctly states

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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

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

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 11 of the Act must be construed as income. He further submitted that if contributions are received with a specific direction for a particular purpose, the same shall

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

The appeal is disposed of

13(8) of the Act, thereby traversing beyond the scope of the appeal without appreciating the facts and circumstances and recorded a perverse finding? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a Trust engaged in the business of construction and real estate activities and is registered under Section 12AA

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