M/S. VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), VARANASI

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

10(29). When these provisions were amended w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, then the necessity arose to register these institutions under Section 12A. In view of the objects, there is no good reason for holding that statutory bodies could not be treated as "charitable" within the meaning of Section 2(15). The object of the "Authority" is to provide shelter

VARANASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VARANASEE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

10(29). When these provisions were amended w.e.f. 1st April, 2003, then the necessity arose to register these institutions under Section 12A. In view of the objects, there is no good reason for holding that statutory bodies could not be treated as "charitable" within the meaning of Section 2(15). The object of the "Authority" is to provide shelter

MATH GARWA GHAT (TRUST),VARANASI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: N.A. Math Gadwaghat Trust V. The Cit (Exemptions) Bangla Kuti, Ramna Varanasi Varanasi Tan/Pan:Aaets8008G (Appellant) (Respondent)

13(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the administrative expenditure cannot be said to be outside the ambit of charitable activities, because these are expenditures incurred for carrying out the activities of the trust, for which registration was granted earlier. Once the similar nature of activities have been accepted in the past and also exactly similar nature of expenditures have

THE SPRINGER EDUCATION FOUNDATION,,GORAKHPUR vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

Section 10(23C) introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2006 vide Finance Act, 2006 as amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.r.e.f. 1.4.2009 states as under: “……. Provided also that in case the fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in the purpose of grant of exemption or continuance thereof, such

GYAN PEETH TRUST,SONEBHADRA vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: N.A. Gyanpeeth Trust, The Cit(Exemption), Ternahi, Robertsganj, T.C. 46-V , Sonebhadra-222645, Up State Construction& Uttar Pradesh V. Infrastructure Development Corporation, Vibhutikhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, Uttar Pradesh Pan:Aabtg9961D (Appellant) (Respondent)

charitable purposes and allegedly exaggerated and bogus expenses were claimed. Based on material on record, the ld. CIT(E) observed that the activities of the assessee were not genuine , and it was also observed that the part of income was applied for the benefit of persons specified in Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13

SANT KACHACHA BABA LOK SEWA TRUST,,VARANASI vs. CIT (E), LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

10,000/- for financial year 2015-16 and 2016-17, but no details/lease deed/rent agreement were submitted by assessee, which raises serious concerns about misuse of funds of the assessee for the benefit of persons referred to in Section 3 Assessment Year: N.A. SantKachacha Baba LokSewa Trust, Varanasi 13(3) of the 1961 Act. Thus, in nut-shell