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 trust existing for the benefit of the members of the public, that it was registered with the CIT under Section 12A, that the business was carried on by the beneficiaries of the trust in furtherance of the objects, that the provisions of Section 11(4

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

Charitable Trust engaged in the activity of preservation of environment by providing pollution control treatment for disposal of the liquid and solid industrial waste. The assessee Company was incorporated on 19th October, 1995, and later in point of time, converted into a Company Limited by shares incorporated under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. 4

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 I vs. M/s. Biological E. Ltd.,

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

4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996) and subsequently it is noticed that— SUNIL

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

section 13(1)(b) of the Act.?” 3. The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is a charitable trust registered for the community and the exemption (2 of 11) [ITA-163/2012] was sought under 12AA. The CIT (A) has rejected the same. However, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal. 4

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

4. The facts in brief are that the assessee i.e. Improvement Trust, Bathinda is a Trust constituted under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for short '1922 Act'). Vide order dated 16.08.2010, the assessee was PANKAJ BAWEJA 2018.09.20 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document [HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

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 12A of the Act vide order dated 22.11.1993 has been restored. 3. Facts relating to ITA No. 94 of 2011 are being noticed for disposal of the appeal which raise common questions. 4 Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that assessee - Baba Banda Singh Bahadur Education Trust is an Educational Trust claiming to be engaged in charitable

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Charitable Trust derived from building, plant and machinery and furniture was liable to be computed in normal commercial manner although the Trust may not be carrying on any business and the assets in respect whereof depreciation is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases, section 32 of the Income Tax Act providing for depreciation for computation

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 of 24 C/TAXAP/273/2011                                                                                                 JUDGMENT the Delhi High Court that "thus, if the dominant activity of the assessee was not business, then any incidental or ancillary activity would also not fall within the definition of business." In para 64, 67, 69, 70, 71 and 72 the Delhi High Court has observed and held as under: “64. It is not necessary

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and learned counsel for the respondent-assessee and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue has raised a two fold contention. He contended that sub-section(15) of Section 2 of the Act defines “charitable purpose” to include, inter alia, advancement of any other object of general

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

4. So far as A.Y.2011-2012, all three authorities namely Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have denied the benefit of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 5. Sri. Chandrashekar for the assessee, adverting to Section 12(1) of the Act submitted that any voluntary contribution received by the Trust for charitable

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 wholly for charitable or religious purposes, to the extent to which such income is applied to such purposes in India; and, where any such income is accumulated or set apart for application to such purposes in India, to the extent to which the income so accumulated or set apart is not in excess of fifteen per cent

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Trust for seeking exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the activities of the said Board. In the present case also (3 of 4) [ITA-389/2011] learned counsel for the appellant had sought to contend that since the agricultural produce marketing committees, the assessees herein, have been claiming the benefit of Section

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

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

4. (2008) 303 ITR 111 (Delhi) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO I.T.T.A. No.67 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao) This appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), against the order in I.T.A.No.133/V/1997 passed

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 - II vs. M/s. Inforaise Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,

Trust Board, and that they are not under the control of the Commissioner. He places reliance on Sections 6, 14, 15 of the said Act. All the learned counsel, in unison, placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Bhanunni v. Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (Admn.) Department1 apart from other judgments as they squarely