Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Trust wholly for charitable purpose? To answer this question, the Division Bench of M.P.High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (1) referred to the various provisions of the M.P.Act, and the earlier case law including the Gujarat Maritime Board and held that market committees fulfil all the requirements of Section

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

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

17. Thus, if a property is held under trust, and such property is a business, the case would fall under Section 11(4) and not under Section 11(4A) of the Act. Section 11(4A) of the Act, would apply only to a case where the business is not held under trust. 18. In view of the above settled legal

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' under Section 2(15) of the Act as it stood from 01.04.2009. It was urged that the activities of the assessee are more akin to the developer and builder. The assessee-Trust purchased land at nominal rates and after carving out plots, the same were sold at exorbitant rates and thereby assessee-Trust earned huge profits. Reliance

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2(15) was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, it was held that the assessee therein was entitled to exemption provided under Section 11 for the relevant assessment year. (d) From the aforesaid judgments what emerges is that in respect of two similar authorities namely Bagalkot 17 Town Development Authority and Luknow Development Authority which

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

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

2(15) of 1961 Act wherein 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

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

2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)]] and subsequently the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner is satisfied that the activities of such trust or institution are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or institution, as the case may be, he shall pass an order in writing cancelling the registration of such trust

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

2(17) of the 1987 Act, governed by Sections 47 and 48 thereof. According to him, the Executive Officer, under Section 29(3)(c) has to function under the trustees or Trust Board. Though appointed by the government, the Executive Officer is under the control of the Trust Board, and that they are not under the control of the Commissioner

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 11(2

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

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

2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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

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-III, vs. Smt. Babita Gupta

Of the prospective amendment to Section 2(15) of the Act, the

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Trust was not furnished, the above statement regarding amount being accumulated for charitable activities cannot be acted upon. 8. A perusal of Form No.10 reveals that the requirement of the resolution, referred to in the statement therein, having to be enclosed with the said Form, has not been indicated. In other words, there is nothing in either Section 11(2

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-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. 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 (2