Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

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

22 and 24) Applying the tests laid down by the apex court in the aforesaid cases to the facts of the present case, there can be no doubt that the object of the market committees (assessees) established under the 1963 Act is to regulate the entire marketing of agricultural and some other produce from the stage of procuring till

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

E N T % 03.05.2016 Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.: Introduction 1. The common question in this batch of matters pertains to the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Customs Act, 1962 („Act‟) which was inserted by the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011 („Validation Act, 2011‟) with effect from 16th September 2011. In terms of Section

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

e. f. 01.04.1992 is in the following terms: - “(4A) Sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub- section (3A) shall not apply in relation to any income of a trust or an institution, being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust ITA 309/2003

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

e) The Trust is to provide “Service Lane” 16 wide with parking and footpath”. The amount to be spent is Rs. One Crore Vide Resolution No. 48 dated 26.08.2008 (free of cost). (f) The Trust has given as “Charity” of 'town cleaning machine' (vaccum Machine) to the Municipal Corporation, Bathinda, for Rs. 64.86 Lakhs vide Resolution No.56

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

e) The activity of the respondent is thus a charitable activity as defined under the expression ‘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

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

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

e. The reasoning and conclusions in American Hotel (supra) and Queen’s Education Society (supra) so far as they pertain to the interpretation of expression ‘solely’ are hereby disapproved. The judgments are accordingly overruled to that extent. f. While considering applications for approval under Section 10(23C), the Commissioner or the concerned authority as the case may be under

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.,

22 of 2005 was enacted to provide information to the citizens, to curtail corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable, the subject temple is not an instrumentality of the State and the Executive Officer is not a ‘public authority’, as defined under Section 2(h) of the 2005 Act. The 2nd respondent had filed the counter-affidavit stating

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

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

22. It is submitted that the impugned order cannot alter the order dated 27th August, 2010 by which the Joint APLs were appointed and therefore, the directions were issued in Sub-Para (a), (b) and (c) in the impugned order enforcing the APLs' decision by majority and recognizing the power of the Joint

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

22. It is relevant to mention that Section 13(1Xd) of ttre Act Prohibits exemption of any sum invested or deposited otherwise than anY mode specified under Section 1 1(5)of the Act' The aPpellant society has been registered under (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration e>Section 8OG of the Income Tax Act as well

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”), has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “(a) Revise the impugned order (Annexure P/1) under Sec.115 of the CPC, 1908 dated 26.09.22 of the Hon'ble ADJ of the South East Saket District Court in Computer Junction vs Gisil Designs (CS DJ 754/20169287116) whereby

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Trusts or Societies it donated the amounts to, had the requisite approval. The necessary certificates to claim deductions under Section 80G were not forthcoming, neither during the assessment nor in the appellate proceedings. Before the Tribunal, the assessee appears to have argued ITA Nos.278, 807, 1578 & 312/2010 Page 11 that what it claimed as a limited permissible deduction by virtue

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

TRUST, (REGD.) NO.33, CHALAKERE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANASWADI POST, 42 BANGALORE-560 043, REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE-CUM-SECRETARY, V.VENKATARAMA REDDY ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGLAORE-560 001, REPTD. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE