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.

32 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi600Mumbai518Karnataka472Chennai327Bangalore257Ahmedabad153Jaipur148Pune145Hyderabad102Kolkata99Chandigarh78Lucknow55Amritsar48Cochin43Cuttack43Indore33Visakhapatnam32Allahabad31Nagpur22Surat22Calcutta19Rajkot19Telangana17Agra15Raipur15SC11Patna8Jodhpur8Varanasi6Dehradun6Panaji5Kerala5Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan3Jabalpur2Andhra Pradesh2Ranchi2T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Guwahati1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 12A38Section 1117Section 14716Exemption16Section 143(3)15Addition to Income13Section 14812Section 143(1)10Section 143(2)

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), , VIJAYAWADA vs. CARE AND SHARE CHARITABLE TRUST, , VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 337/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.R.S. Narayan, CIT DR
Section 12A

27 acres of land at Buddavaram, on the outskirts of Vijayawada, and we built - Daddy's Home - a Rescue and Rehabilitation Home for street children and orphans. There are 12 Homes for the children, a Dispensary, Cafeteria, Laundry, School, an Auditorium, Playgrounds, a Football, Basketball and Volleyball courts and a Skating Rink. There is also a Farm and Poultry. Today

SWARAJ FOUNDATION,VISAKHAPATANAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 2(15)6
Depreciation6
Disallowance4
ITA 68/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

charitable institutions. 16. In our considered view, the CIT(Exemptions) ought not to have rejected the application filed by the assessee trust in “Form No. 10AB” for permanent registration u/s 12AB as non-maintainable without affording it an opportunity to rectify the said procedural error. We are of firm conviction that the rendering of substantive justice should not be allowed

SWARAJ FOUNDATION,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION WARD), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust in ITA

ITA 69/VIZ/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G(5)

charitable institutions. 16. In our considered view, the CIT(Exemptions) ought not to have rejected the application filed by the assessee trust in “Form No. 10AB” for permanent registration u/s 12AB as non-maintainable without affording it an opportunity to rectify the said procedural error. We are of firm conviction that the rendering of substantive justice should not be allowed

SREERAM BHAGAWATHI AYYAPPA SEVA TRUST,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

In the result, the impugned order dated 13

ITA 216/VIZ/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: rejection.”

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

charitable and religious nature. 4. The rejection order is mechanical and arbitrary, as it does not specify how the trust’s activities deviate from its stated objectives. 5. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to apply the principle of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for further clarification before rejection.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee trust was constituted

SREERAM BHAGAWATHI AYYAPPA SEVA TRUST,KAKINADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAKINADA

In the result, the impugned order dated 13

ITA 217/VIZ/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: rejection.”

Section 12ASection 80G(5)

charitable and religious nature. 4. The rejection order is mechanical and arbitrary, as it does not specify how the trust’s activities deviate from its stated objectives. 5. The Ld. CIT(E) failed to apply the principle of natural justice by not providing an opportunity for further clarification before rejection.” 3. Succinctly stated, the assessee trust was constituted

SRI KANAKA MAHALAKSHMI AMMAVARI TEMPLE,BURUJUPETA vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.358/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sri Kanaka Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple V. Centralized Processing Center D.No. 22-71-26/B, Skml Temple Bangalore. Kotha Road, Burujupeta Visakhapatnam – 530001, Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aaajs1861M] (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent)

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 65

Charitable Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1987. He therefore pleaded that relief for the capital receipts and Hundi collections may be granted to the assessee. 6. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative [hereinafter in short “Ld.DR”] fully relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The principal

ACIT,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, TUNI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 465/VIZ/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

trust under Section 12 because some of the funds were being utilised for purposes other than charitable and religious was a finding of fact and no question of law arose for reference." This judgment was relied upon by the Reference. A careful reading of this judgment does not indicate that the question raised by the assessee before us was posed

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASHA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNII

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 467/VIZ/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

trust under Section 12 because some of the funds were being utilised for purposes other than charitable and religious was a finding of fact and no question of law arose for reference." This judgment was relied upon by the Reference. A careful reading of this judgment does not indicate that the question raised by the assessee before us was posed

ACIT, (EXEMPTIONS), EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. SRI PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,, TUNI,

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue for the

ITA 382/VIZ/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri T. Satyanandam, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 133ASection 2(24)

trust under Section 12 because some of the funds were being utilised for purposes other than charitable and religious was a finding of fact and no question of law arose for reference." This judgment was relied upon by the Reference. A careful reading of this judgment does not indicate that the question raised by the assessee before us was posed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 313/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Rama Swami, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.R.S. Narayan, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)

27. By respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 690 & 691/VIZ/2013 (supra), we find no infirmity in the order passed by 15 ITA Nos. 312-314/VIZ/2018 (M/s. Cargo Handling Pvt. Workers Pool Trust) the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the department

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS),, VIJAYAWADA vs. CARGO HANDLING PRIVATE WORKERS POOL TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 312/VIZ/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Jun 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Dr. C.P. Rama Swami, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.R.S. Narayan, CIT DR
Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 164(2)

27. By respectfully following the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 690 & 691/VIZ/2013 (supra), we find no infirmity in the order passed by 15 ITA Nos. 312-314/VIZ/2018 (M/s. Cargo Handling Pvt. Workers Pool Trust) the ld. CIT(A). Thus, this ground of appeal raised by the department

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. MILK PRODUCERS EMPLOYEES EDUCATIONAL HEALTH MEDICAL WELFARE TRUST,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.229/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Milk Producers & Central Circle-2 Employees Educational Visakhapatnam Health & Medical Welfare Trust, D.No.32-11-1 Krishi Building Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaatm6689B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 2(15)Section 271(1)(c)

27,92,593/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the income out of liquid booth does not 5 I.T.A. No.229/Viz/2020 A.Y 2015-16 M/s Milk Producers & Employees Educational Health and Medical Welfare Trust., Visakhapatnam constitute a charitable purpose as defined in section

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), EXEMPTION CIRCLE,, VIJAYAWADA vs. ANDHRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 50/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.50/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2016-2017) Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Andhra Cricket (Exemptions) Association Exemptions Circle D.No.60-8-8, 5Th Lane Vijayawada Siddartha Nagar Vijayawada [Pan : Aaatt2377D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.A.Rahim, I.T.P सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M.A.Rahim, I.T.P
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 194CSection 2(15)

27 which reads as under : “21. On careful examination of the facts of the case and the judicial precedents cited by the assessee, it is seen that the contention of the assessee is acceptable. It is noticed that the Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam held in the assessee’s own case for A.Ys.2010-11 to 2012-13 in I.T.A.No

ASSOCIATION OF RELIEF VOLUNTREERS,,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 194/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.194/Viz/2020 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2016-17) Association Of Relief Volunteers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. (Exemptions), Pan: Aacta 0213 B Rajahmundry. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri On Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154

section 139(1) of the Act. Since the assessee failed to furnish 7 Form-10 along with the return of income for claiming exemption U/s. 11(2) of the Act, exemption shall not be allowed to the assessee. The Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shree

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ADDL. CIT.,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 25/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 397/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 12/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

THE VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ASST. CIT,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 325/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 399/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam

VISAKHAPATNAM PORT AUTHORITY,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 26/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

Charitable Trust / institution. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam observed that allowing the deduction of expenditure relating to the earlier assessment years during the AY 2010-11 amounted to grant of double benefit to the assessee and therefore the order of 10 the Ld. AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT-1, Visakhapatnam