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

e. f. 01.04.1992 is in the following terms: - “(4A) Sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub- section (3A) shall not apply in relation to any income of a trust or an institution, being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust ITA 309/2003

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

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

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

e may examine whether the entire income from such an invesrment made in violation of Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act, which has accrued to the assessee has to be taxed. From perusal of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act, it is evident that the Legislature did not contemplate the benefit of denial 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

e) The Trust is to provide “Service Lane” 16 wide with parking and footpath”. The amount to be spent is Rs. One Crore Vide Resolution No. 48 dated 26.08.2008 (free of cost). (f) The Trust has given as “Charity” of 'town cleaning machine' (vaccum Machine) to the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, for Rs. 64.86 Lakhs vide Resolution No.56

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

13 of the Income tax Acr and therefore, the Trust was not eligible for the endre exemption under Section I I of the IT Act.l3l 31 The High Court of Kerala rn Agappa Child Centre v_ CITtTt dealt with a similar issue. The Assessee a public charitable I I, trust, purchased a refrigerator and kept it at the residence

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E I, ADV.) AND: M/S. ACADEMY OF LIBERAL EDUCATION, KURANJIBAGH, SULLIA-574 327, PAN AAATA 2239B …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI & SMT.SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVS.) Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 2/21 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260- A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

e) The activity of the respondent is thus a charitable activity as defined under the expression ‘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

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

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

3. The Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 admitting a total income of Rs.nil. The return of Income was processed under Section 143(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

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

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

3 Joint APLs and such inventory was made pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 23rd August, 2012. Further, the Hon'ble Division Bench in the order dated 4th May, 2020 held that the unanimous report of Joint ALPs has not been disputed. Further, the inventory of assets records the share holding held by the estate

M/s Sri Surya Constructions vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

e. Consequent thereto, another application was filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of the CPC, for rejection of the plaint of the respondent. The same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide Order dated 26th September 2022. Hence, the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that

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.Pennar Industries Limited,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

E', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 793/Del/2011. The appeals were admitted by this Court vide order dated 10.7.2014 for determination of the substantial questions of law as proposed in para 13 of the appeals which are as under:- ITA-276-2012 (i) Whether the Tribunal has erred in interpretation of Section 12AA(3

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

e) and (f)], on one hand, with the term “interest payable…….. by a public sector company in respect of such bonds…….”, on the other, would reveal a different intention in dealing with the kind of deposit envisioned in Section 10(15)(1)(iv)(h). Interest payable on “bonds or deposits” [referred to Section 10(15)(1)(iv)(fa)] would mean

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

E N T % 03.05.2016 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: Introduction 1. The common question in this batch of matters pertains to the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Customs Act, 1962 („Act‟) which was inserted by the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 („Validation Act, 2011‟) with effect from 16th September 2011. In terms of Section