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 or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year;” 33. S.2(15) of the 1961 Act::- Charitable purpose, defined (upto 31-3-2009).- According to section 2(15), the expression “charitable purpose” has been defined by way of an inclusive definition so as to include- -relief to the poor, -education, -medical relief, and -the advancement

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

8 of 20 cannot render the carrying on the business as an activity incidental to the attainment of the objects of the trust. 10. It would appear that the assessee had taken up another objection before the CIT (Appeals) to the effect that the leasing out of the business unit to another entity did not amount to carrying

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

8 , decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Priyadarshini Educational Academy vs. Director General of Income Tax (Investigationf e , decision of the Delhi High Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (I.T.A.No.321 of 2013 and batch, dated 18.03.2014), decision of the Telangana High Court in M/s.National Academy of Construction vs. Assistant Director of Income

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

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

8. Learned counsel for respondent-Trust, however, defended impugned order dated 16.03.2010 passed by Learned Tribunal and argued that mere generation of surplus income year after year by educational activities would not lead to the conclusion that assessee/Trust is not carrying on activity in accordance with its objects. It is argued that basis of the order of cancellation under Section

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

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

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

8. The assessee filed a detailed reply to the notice. In the reply, the works and objects of the assessee-Trust were mentioned. It was further submitted that though the assessee-Trust may be earning some profits, but the utilization of that funds was for public utilities. The C.I.T. held that the activities of the assessee-Trust were

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 to 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

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

trust?,,. He further stressed upon the ^,,^-.;^_ ^a r^--. _ qucsiloil oi iaii as iu -wirElher fhe Tritrunal shoulci have helci iirat, in any errent ancl without prejudice to the clairn of the appellants the denia! cf exemption on the u'hole of the receipt -itu-as illcgal at least the amount to be taxed should have been conflned to the amount

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT 72. There is nothing on record to indicate the assertion of the petitioner that its activities are not fuelled by profit motive is incorrect. Absence of profit motive, though not conclusive, does indicate that the petitioner is not carrying on any business.” 12.7. Identical question came to be considered by the Delhi High Court

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

Trust enjoys the benefit of certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act, the money received whether voluntary or not would not make any difference so long as the same is shown in Income and Expenditure account. 8. In reply, Shri. Sanmathi, adverting to Section 11(1)(d) of the Act contended that • Only voluntary contributions can be considered

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

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

8. property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise.lt should

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

Charitable Society represented by its  Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC  706.. 12. Normally, in the contract relating to immovable property, time  cannot be essence of the contract and time stipulated for performance  even if expressly read and shown to be essence requires to be read as not  being essence of the contract and subsequently

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

8  number of Writ Petitions, has formulated the following issues for consideration of this Court: 1) What is the purport and scheme of the Right to Information Act, 2005? 2) Who is a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act? Whether the Temple falls within the ambit and scope of the definition