BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

8 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 43(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi505Karnataka473Mumbai406Bangalore210Chennai169Ahmedabad103Jaipur100Hyderabad87Kolkata70Chandigarh55Pune45Cuttack30Lucknow26Indore24Surat20Calcutta17Allahabad15Rajkot13Visakhapatnam13Nagpur13Agra11Guwahati8Telangana8Jodhpur8Cochin7SC6Kerala5Dehradun5Amritsar5Raipur3Rajasthan3Patna2Ranchi1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A4Section 13(1)(b)4Charitable Trust3Exemption3Section 252Section 11(1)2Section 292

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

ITTA/627/2015HC Telangana02 Jun 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 260Section 80G(5)

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/163/2012HC Telangana26 Nov 2012

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)

1)(b) are attracted and society cannot be held as charitable within the meaning of sec.2(15) of the I.T. Act. Based on the material available on record, I am satisfied that the objects of the Society are not charitable and therefore registration to the society is refused.” There is no dispute with regard to the fact that

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

ITTA/449/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 11(1)Section 29Section 32

43(1) can also be referred to and we notice that the language of the said explanation is absolutely different jfrom the language used in Clause (a) to Section 11(1). Section 11(1)(a) is a peculiar provision which postulates application of income and it is not dealing with expenditure as such. The legislative desire is that money should

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

ITTA/441/2013HC Telangana24 Sept 2013

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

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

ITTA/442/2012HC Telangana16 Jul 2013
Section 114

43 Rule 1(r) read with section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  is  the   order  dated  24.9.2012  passed  in  Civil  Suit   Nos.79/2011   and  80/2011 respectively passed below Exh­5, whereby the learned trial  Judge rejected injunction application pending the suit for restraining the  defendants,   their   servants,   agents   from   transferring,   selling,   gifting,  renting or creating third party right

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

ITTA/3/2020HC Telangana25 Aug 2020

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

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

ITTA/622/2015HC Telangana01 Jun 2016

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,

ITTA/240/2007HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.29 on their behalf. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were got marked. 19. POINT: Now the point that arises for determination is: “ whether the findings, conclusions and Award of the Tribunal is legal, valid or suffer from any legal infirmities warranting interference.” 20. For the sake