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 objects. There is no settlement of the business in Katha upon trust for the simple reason that the business itself was not in existence at the time of formation of the trust. The property held under trust was merely a sum of `2,100/-, contributed more or less equally by the settlors at the time of creation of trust

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

14. On the other hand, case of respondent-Trust by way of reply to show cause notice was that surplus so generated by it was being ploughed back into educational infrastructure of the trust and therefore, it was being used for educational purposes as per objects of respondent- Trust. The Commissioner of Income Tax has no power to dictate

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 2(15) of the Act? 14. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the activities of the assessee-Trust does not fall within ambit of 'charitable

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 11 in the past years? In the case of CIT v. Munisuvrat Jain 1994 Tax Law Reporter, 1084 the facts were as follows. The assessee was a Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 5/21 Charitable Trust

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

section shall be passed unless such trust or institution has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 14. The appeals were admitted on 14.02.2012 in view of pendency of Pinegrove International Chairtable Trust vs Union of India and others (2010) 327 ITR (P&H) before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has, however, finally adjudicated

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.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

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

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 - IV vs. M/s. Mekins Agro Product (P) Ltd.

trust beyond 15% of income from such property. If there is a violation of the said provision, proportionate income is deemed to be taxable and not exempt under Section 11(1). The language of the Section is \ peculiar and proceeds on its own wording. This aspect has been highlighted and pointed out in the judgment of Commissioner of Income

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

section 11 not on the basis of the nature of contributions but for the reason that the contributions were applied for charitable purposes. When the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contribution in the nature of income, which is the best situation that 13 the Revenue would always welcome, what is the relevance of arguing whether

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

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

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

The appeal is disposed of

charitable purposes. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on a decision Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI VS. AMITABH BACHAN’, (2016) 69 TAXMANN.COM 170 (SC) and decision of this court in ‘THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. VS. M/S INDIA HERITAGE TRUST’, ITA NO.754/2007 DATED 04.08.2014. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel

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

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

Trust in the year in which the income was spent in acquiring those assets. Therefore, it had been meant that in computing the income from those assets in the subsequent years, depreciation in respect of those assets cannot be taken into account. This view of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the above judgment. Therefore

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Act emphasizes that the income of the Institution has to be from activities which are solely educational and not commercial activities, if the income has to be exempted from tax. This Court was reiterating the settled legal position in this regard as explained by the Supreme Court of India in Aditanar Educational Institution