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

trust for religious or charitable purposes within the meaning of the substantive clause of section 4(3)(i).” 17. Thus

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

charitable activity has been defined. While cancelling the registration under Section 12AA(3) of 1961 Act, reliance was placed upon judgment of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Children Book Trust, (1992) 3 SCC 390 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court in SUNIL CHANDER 2026.02.27 17

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

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee argued that the activities of the assessee-Trust are for charitable purpose and the matter is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in similar cases of Trusts, in the case of Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Improvement Trust, Moga reported

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 but was engaged in profit making under the garb of education. (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was legally correct in deducing that the Commissioner had no power to cancel the registration granted u/s 12A even when there was no such provision in the Act prohibiting the CIT from doing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 8/21 In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT Section 2(15) of the Act, the said Trust-assessee was denied the exemption under Section 11 of the Act. While holding that the activities of the assessee trust still can be said to be for charitable

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

17. These decisions have been noted in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust [Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17 Town Development Authority and Luknow Development Authority which are similar to the appellant authority, it has been held that they are entitled to registration under Section 12 (A)(1)(aa) of the Act and to the benefit under Sections 11 and 12 of the Act. As already submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant authority

Samaj Seva Nidhi, vs. ACIT [Inv] circle-II

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

17 of the Income Tax Rules read with Section 139 of the Act, that the assessee should have filed required information by 30.09.1996 but submitted the information only on 10.03.1997 and hence could not be taken into consideration. But, he fairly submitted that the explanation in the letter dated 10.03.1997 is in sufficient compliance with Section

M/s. PCL-STICCO Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal stands dismissed

17 was filed after 3 years of assessment u/s 143(3) i.e. on 24.11. 2006 under remand proceedings on a fresh evidence contrary to directions of I. T. A. T. remand order dated 13.04.2007” 3. The counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 167/2010 in the case of same

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 [2001] 114 Taxman 19/249 ITR 5i)3 (Bom') and in IT (Exemptionf v. Agrim Charan Foundation [2002] 253 ITR 593 by Bombay and Delhi High Courts respectively. It is pertinent. to mention that the aforesaid decisions were relied on by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another v. FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions

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

charitable institutions. The legal interpretation which has continued since 1984, if disturbed and implemented, would not appropriately resolved. Consistency and certainty is more appropriate. 16. The equally plausible and consistent interpretation of clause (a) of Section 11(1) of the Act is that income derived fi:om property must be calculated as per the principles of the Act. The said

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

charitable purpose, it would automatically become taxable and the assessee would not be entitled to exemption. But, on the contrary, without there being a finding of violation of Section 13 of the Act, an inference is drawn on an alleged receipt of donation and consequently, the allegation is made that there is a violation of Section

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

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

Charitable societies and trusts are not part of the estate of the testatrix which are managed by the respective managing committees and trustees of the societies or trusts. The companies are separate legal entities controlled by their Board of Directors and the affairs of the estate of the testatrix do not include the right to control the affairs

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

charitable or religious trust or irrstitution will not be entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and I 2, if certain conditions stipulated therein are not complied with ' Andhra Pradesh Act and also has ::12:: PSK.J & Li.{A..1 ITI'A 500 2006 and barch 23. In 199g, the Government cf Ar:dhra pradesh established the National Academy of Construction INAC