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, clauses 19 and 20 which permitted the trust to carry on any business and to borrow monies from banks, individuals, financial institutions and business houses are not really the objects, but were clauses stipulating the powers of the trustees. Having thus made a distinction between the objects and powers, the CIT (Appeals) proceeded to examine Section

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Charitable Trust reported in [2013] 355 ITR 280 wherein it has been held as under:- (5 of 11) [ITA-163/2012] “8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, but find no merit in the present appeals. As per Section

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

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

8. Learned counsel for respondent-Trust, however, defended impugned order dated 16.03.2010 passed by Learned Tribunal and argued that mere generation of surplus income year after year by educational activities would not lead to the conclusion that assessee/Trust is not carrying on activity in accordance with its objects. It is argued that basis of the order of cancellation under Section

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

trust was not carrying on any charitable activities within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act but was engaged in trade and commerce with a motive to generate profits under the garb of education. It relied on the interpretation of charitable purpose and finding that imparting education per se is not a charitable activity. He proceeded to cancel

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 12AA of the Act, be not cancelled. 8. The assessee filed a detailed reply to the notice. In the reply, the works and objects of the assessee-Trust were mentioned. It was further submitted that though the assessee-Trust may be earning some profits, but the utilization of that funds was for public utilities. The C.I.T. held that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.346/2015 Commissioner of Income Tax & another Vs. M/s Academy of Liberal Education 8/21 In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

The appeal is disposed of

8) of the Act, thereby traversing beyond the scope of the appeal without appreciating the facts and circumstances and recorded a perverse finding? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that assessee is a Trust engaged in the business of construction and real estate activities and is registered under Section 12AA

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

trust still can be said to be for charitable purpose within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Act and same cannot be said to be in the nature of trade, commerce or business for which proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is required to be applied. In para 6, 7, 8

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 not involve an activity which is in the nature of trade, commerce or business

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

8 , decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Priyadarshini Educational Academy vs. Director General of Income Tax (Investigationf e , decision of the Delhi High Court in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Charanjiv Charitable Trust (I.T.A.No.321 of 2013 and batch, dated 18.03.2014), decision of the Telangana High Court in M/s.National Academy of Construction vs. Assistant Director of Income

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

charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus ofthe trust for derivingthe income. The Board also appears to have understood the " income " u/s. 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No. 5-P (LXX-6) of 1968, dated July 19, 1968, reads: Where the trust derives income from house 8. property, interest

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

Trust enjoys the benefit of certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act, the money received whether voluntary or not would not make any difference so long as the same is shown in Income and Expenditure account. 8. In reply, Shri. Sanmathi, adverting to Section 11(1)(d) of the Act contended that • Only voluntary contributions can be considered

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

Charitable Society represented by its  Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC  706.. 12. Normally, in the contract relating to immovable property, time  cannot be essence of the contract and time stipulated for performance  even if expressly read and shown to be essence requires to be read as not  being essence of the contract and subsequently

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

trust?,,. He further stressed upon the ^,,^-.;^_ ^a r^--. _ qucsiloil oi iaii as iu -wirElher fhe Tritrunal shoulci have helci iirat, in any errent ancl without prejudice to the clairn of the appellants the denia! cf exemption on the u'hole of the receipt -itu-as illcgal at least the amount to be taxed should have been conflned to the amount

The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Goldstar Holdings AND Industries Limited, Hyderabad.

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

8. On appeal by the Assessee-Trust, the CIT (A) by the order dated 15th June, 2001 set aside the order of the AO accepting the plea of the Trust that its income was exempt under Section 10 (22) of the Act. This order of the CIT (A) has been concurred with by the ITAT. 9. The Court finds that

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