Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

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

trust or institution. The true purpose must be genuinely and essentially charitable. In APSRTC, the question was whether the income of APSRTC was exempt from income tax under Section 4(3)(i). On a reference by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative in favour of the assessee. Following Trustees of the Tribune

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

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

28(2)(iii) by disposing off its lands. That, however, does not take it out of the definition of 'charitable purpose' in Section 2(15) . As we held earlier, trade, commerce and business in Section 2(15) must be such as to involve an element of profit. Profit, however, is not the predominant motive of such trusts

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

28. The issue involved in this appeal had also come up for consideration before three High Courts, namely, Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust, (2011) 243 CTR(Del) 245, Uttaranchal High Court in the case of Welham Boys’ School Society vs. CBDT, (2006) 285 ITR 74 (Uttaranchal

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Trust from the properly held for charitable or religious purposes and it Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 6/21 also provides for application and accumulation of income. On the other hand, section 28

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

28,695/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an Appeal before the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals), who, by arr order dated O4.O2.2OOO inter aliaheld that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of exemption under Section 1 1 of the Act. However, certain additions made by the assessing officer were directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the appeal preferred

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

trust to determine the income for the purpose of application under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. This would reduce the possibility of revenue leakage which may be a cause for generation of black v; money," 6. From the above, what is clear is that the Central Board also confirms the view taken by us that after allowing cost

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

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Appeal stands dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

charitable trusts under Section 12A. The CIT (TDS), by order dated 22.03.2024, reached to the conclusion that the AO had not properly conducted the inquiry and remanded the matter to the AO for conducting proper inquiry into all the aspects, which could not have been halted by the ITAT. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced

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 trust having its office at Nagamangala Taluk, Tumakuru District. It has been in existence since 1973. 2. The Trust has got registered under Section 12A of the Act on 17.07.1974. It is running various educational institutions throughout the State of 3 Karnataka. During the financial year 2006-07, the Trust was also running a hospital by the name

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Sri Ashven Datla

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

28 of 2007 “Punjab Sindh Kshetra Rishikesh Vs. Smt. Chunia Devi and others”. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist- plaintiff Punjab Sindh Kshetra Rishikesh instituted the aforesaid suit against defendant-Smt. Chunia Devi and others, inter alia, on the ground that revisionist/plaintiff is a charitable trust registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. Shri Raghuveer

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/S Srinivasa Resorts Limited,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28. A perusal of Ex.A.2 goes to suggest that P.W.5 specifically asserted in his statement recorded by the police that on 11.12.2001 at about 4.14 AM himself and one Ashwini Gouda were at the bus stop at H.Kalpanahalli rural circle and observed the Maruthi/Santro car which was on the way from Bangalore to Devangiri side and at the same time