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

charitable purposes. As regards the position in law, after the amendment made to Section 11(4A) of the Act w. e. f. 01.04.1992, the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Thanthi Trust, (2001) 247 ITR 785 (SC) in which the effect of the amendment was considered. It was held

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

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

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

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

Charitable Trust Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) was approved) has been overruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s. New Noble Educational Society Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax I and Anr., 2023 (6) SCC 649, therefore, order of learned Tribunal be set aside and appeal be allowed by restoring order of cancellation of registration passed

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

charitable activity. He proceeded to cancel the registration vide order dated 02.03.2010. 7. The respondent-assessee preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which allowed the same vide its order dated 16.07.2010, holding that the Commissioner was not empowered to cancel or withdraw registration invoking Section 12AA (3) of the Act. 8. The Tribunal held that the provisions

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-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

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

9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records. 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

9 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT exercise coercive powers, including inspection, raids; they possess search and seizure powers and are invariably subjected to Parliamentary or legislative oversight. The primary object for setting up such regulatory bodies would be to ensure general public utility. The prescribing of standards, and enforcing those standards, through accreditation and continuing supervision through inspection etc., cannot

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

The appeal is disposed of

13(8) of the Act would become part of total 6 income under the Act. It was further held that in the light of aforesaid retrospective amendment of the law, the application of income for charitable purposes becomes irrelevant. It was further held that income derived from business cannot be considered as income derived from the property held for charitable

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

9. Learned counsel for the assessee further contended that the Tribunal has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of KIADB referred to above. That the said judgment has stipulated two 10 conditions for exercise of power under Section 12AA(3) of the Act and those conditions are mandatory. Hence, the Commissioner could not have cancelled

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-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

CHARITABLE FOUNDATION reported in (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC). Therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered a batch of cases on the very same question of law, which also arose in the case of very same Assessee herein. Therein, the question of law considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was, when the Income Tax Officer states that full expenditure

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

13.  It is further the case of the plaintiff  that clause 15 of the agreement specifically provides that owners would  be responsible to hand over peaceful possession of the suit land after  taking   the   possession   of   the   land   from   one   Mr.   Devilal   Shah   i.e.  defendant No.4, who is cultivating the suit land.   According to the  plaintiff's case, during

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

9. The Court finds that an elaborate discussion has been made of the materials on record by the CIT (A) and convincing reasons have been given in its order for reversal of the assessment order of the AO. The short question that had to be addressed was whether the income earned by the Trust was exclusively from educational activities

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

9  or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non- Government Organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. It may also be noted that Section 4, casts certain obligations on public authorities, more specified in sub-section (1)(a)&(b). A close scrutiny