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.

10 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 80(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka474Delhi418Mumbai335Bangalore174Chennai145Ahmedabad110Jaipur105Chandigarh87Hyderabad80Pune62Kolkata57Cochin53Lucknow37Indore23Cuttack21Rajkot20Amritsar19Agra16Calcutta16Visakhapatnam15Telangana10Nagpur9Surat8Jodhpur7Raipur7Varanasi7SC4Allahabad4Ranchi4Patna3Rajasthan3Punjab & Haryana2Panaji2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Guwahati1Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A12Section 2607Section 116Section 10(20)5Section 2(15)5Section 1514Exemption3Section 11(1)2Section 252

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)

80(G) and both the copies of Memorandum & Articles of Association (commercial & section 25) are enclosed herewith as per Annexure-1 (Pages A1 to A60).” 5. The assessee also pointed out the objects of the company as incorporated in the Memorandum of Association at the time of registration dated 19th October, 1995 as under; “To engage in the business

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

Charitable Trust2

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITTA/161/2016HC Telangana27 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

charitable in nature or not is answered against the Revenue. 20. Before proceeding further to decide the issue, it would be appropriate to reproduce the activities of the assessee-Trust and figure losses suffered. These were pleaded before the CIT as under :- (a) To develop sewerage in the city costing about Rs.58.36 crores vide Resolution No. 49, dated 05.09.2008 (without

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

ITTA/346/2015HC Telangana06 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 11Section 260Section 32

Sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit? 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation

AP State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the Appeals are partly allowed

ITTA/79/2008HC Telangana28 Nov 2024

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

For Appellant: SRl. A. V. KRISHNA KOUNDINYAFor Respondent: SRI J. V. PRASAD (Senior SC for Revenue )
Section 151Section 260

Trust [2001] 114 Taxman 19/249 ITR 5i)3 (Bom') and in IT (Exemptionf v. Agrim Charan Foundation [2002] 253 ITR 593 by Bombay and Delhi High Courts respectively. It is pertinent. to mention that the aforesaid decisions were relied on by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another v. FR. Mullers Charitable Institutions

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/389/2011HC Telangana29 Nov 2011
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

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

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

Sri Rajesh Rawtani vs. The Income Tax Officer

The appeals are disposed off in the above

ITTA/278/2010HC Telangana17 Dec 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 10Section 37(1)

5 similarly be taken into account as trading receipts where it is necessary to do so in order to ascertain the true profits.” In Bharat Earth Movers (supra) (decided by the Supreme Court), the question which the Court had to consider was whether the provision for meeting earned-leave-encashment by the employee was an admissible deduction in the hands

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

5 hours prior to the time of reaching the place of accident. Accordingly he is also not the eye witness to the accident. Therefore there is only evidence of PW.5-Ramesh and R.W.1, the driver of the offending KSRTC bus at the time of accident. 27. The consistent evidence of P.W.5 is that he was working as Carpenter. The accident occurred