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.

9 results for “disallowance”+ Charitable Trustclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai982Delhi687Chennai425Bangalore363Kolkata211Ahmedabad178Pune135Jaipur128Hyderabad80Karnataka74Chandigarh68Lucknow64Cochin52Indore43Surat39Amritsar37Rajkot32Visakhapatnam32Cuttack32Allahabad30Nagpur23Jodhpur16Raipur14Patna11Ranchi10Telangana9Agra7SC6Kerala6Jabalpur5Dehradun5Guwahati5Panaji3Punjab & Haryana3Varanasi2Rajasthan1Orissa1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 12A8Section 80I7Exemption7Section 13(8)5Charitable Trust5Section 114Section 2604Section 2634Section 2(15)4Deduction

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

disallowed the same on the ground that there is no express provision in the Act permitting the adjustment of earlier years brought forward expenses as application of income in the current year. According to the Assessing Officer, the application of income for charitable purposes must be during the relevant previous year. Since the income of the trust

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

The appeals are hereby dismissed

ITTA/161/2016HC Telangana27 Sept 2018

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

4
Addition to Income4
Depreciation4
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 260A

charitable purpose. 22. In the case of Improvement Trust Moga (supra), similar PANKAJ BAWEJA 2018.09.20 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document [HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH] ITA No. 161 of 2016 (O&M) & connected cases. -11- contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue have been considered and rejected by this Court. The relevant portion

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)

Charitable Institution and the license granted to the assessee as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act would, prima facie, clothe the assesseee with the character of a charitable institution. However, neither of the above two events is conclusive and the question whether the assessee is established for a charitable purpose or not must be examined independently with

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

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

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

ITTA/67/2004HC Telangana07 Apr 2015

Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 260A

disallowing the benefit of accumulation by the assessee of an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 11(2) of the Act?” The assessee is a Trust formed for charitable

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. SOMA ENTERPRISES LTD

The appeal is disposed off accordingly

ITTA/209/2010HC Telangana16 Jul 2025

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194JSection 260Section 40

charitable trust having its office at Nagamangala Taluk, Tumakuru District. It has been in existence since 1973. 2. The Trust has got registered under Section 12A of the Act on 17.07.1974. It is running various educational institutions throughout the State of 3 Karnataka. During the financial year 2006-07, the Trust was also running a hospital by the name

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

The appeal is disposed of

ITTA/382/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013
Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80I

Trust engaged in the business of construction and real estate activities and is registered under Section 12AA of the Act on 07.12.2007. The assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment year 2009-10 and declared total turnover to the tune of Rs.194.24 Crores and a sum of Rs.57.39 Crores was claimed as profit. The assessee declared the income

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA

In the result, we set aside the assessment orders, except to

ITTA/133/2014HC Telangana03 Aug 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

For Appellant: --------------------------------------------------------For Respondent: ------------------------------------------------------
Section 11Section 132Section 44Section 44A

CHARITABLE TRUST CHANDANATHOPE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/REVENUE: ------------------------------------------------------ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI P.K.R.MENON(SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-09-2014, ALONG WITH ITA. 134/2014, ITA. 135/2014, ITA. 136/2014, ITA. 137/2014, ITA. 139/2014, ITA. 140/2014 & ITA. 142/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME

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)

charitable, and linked with the well being of the assessee’s employees, the expenditure was correctly ITA Nos.278, 807, 1578 & 312/2010 Page 10 allowed under section 37(1). The AO and the CIT had disallowed the claim originally made under section 80G. The reasoning of these two lower authorities was that the claim was unsupported by any documentary proof with