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 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka460Delhi379Mumbai286Bangalore140Chennai105Jaipur78Hyderabad75Ahmedabad72Chandigarh43Cochin43Pune41Lucknow34Kolkata32Indore29Visakhapatnam20Amritsar18Calcutta18Surat17Nagpur15Agra12Allahabad10Telangana8Rajkot8Patna7Kerala5SC5Varanasi5Rajasthan3Dehradun3Raipur3Cuttack2Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Punjab & Haryana1Orissa1Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 12A8Section 2607Exemption4Section 113Charitable Trust3Section 252Section 2(15)2Section 1512

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)

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose of the statute

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

ITTA/270/2011HC Telangana15 Nov 2011

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

Section 12ASection 2Section 2(15)

56 students was waived off out of 2901 students, which is 2% of total students showing absence of any subsidy for the poor and needy. 14. On the other hand, case of respondent-Trust by way of reply to show cause notice was that surplus so generated by it was being ploughed back into educational infrastructure of the trust

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s.R.A.K.Ceramics India Private Limited

Appeals are allowed; and

ITTA/595/2016HC Telangana23 Dec 2016

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,M.S.K.JAISWAL

Section 11Section 260

56 TAXMANN.COM 182 (PARA 4.8 AND 4.9) 8 6. He further submitted that the reasons recorded by the tribunal is that the money received by the trust are in the form of capitation fees and on this premise, exemption under Section 11 of the Act has been denied. 7. In substance Shri. Chandrashekar's, arguments is, so long

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

ITTA/293/2014HC Telangana31 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

For Appellant: SRI S' RAVIFor Respondent: Ms' K' MAMATA
Section 151Section 260Section 260A

56,7OOl-. 4. itzii pSK,.i & LNA,J IT'IA_500 2006 and batch The appellants are primarily aggrieved of the refusdl of exemption claimed under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. 5. The appeal was admitted ort 22.Ct9.2O14 on tl-e question of law, .riz., " uhether the exemption clain,,_ed. bg the appeiiant urtder Section

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

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,

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

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

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

ITTA/240/2007HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

charitable purpose could be reflected from Ex.A.18 paper publications and donations paid in the name of his daughter Smitha. 41. The evidence of P.W.1 supported by Ex.A.8 goes to suggest that he (PW.1) has been paying income tax and running Venkateswara Eye Hospital. As per Ex.A.10, P.W.1 deposited Rs.5.00 lakhs in the name of his deceased daughter Smitha which