Dewas Silk Mills vs Cit on 20 October, 2004
In the case of Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust (supra), the Kerala High Court noted the question, but declined to answer the same.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 45 (2.26 seconds)Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable ... vs The Cit, Cochin on 16 January, 2018
In the case of CIT vs. Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust 212 ITR 456, the
Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that application of income for charitable
43
Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust
purpose is sufficient for claiming exemption. Relevant portion of order is
extracted below.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Oxford University Press on 21 December, 1995
19. Equally inapplicable is the ratio of the decision of the Kerala High Court in CIT vs. Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust (supra). In that case, the controversy was whether the assessee-trust, whose sole object was the establishment and running, etc., of hospitals, was entitled to exemption under s. 10(22A) of the Act. The Court decided the controversy in favour of the trust and observed that what is relevant for the purpose of s. 10(22) is that the income should reach the hospital to be applied by it for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit. It was pointed out (at p. 468 of 212 of ITR) :
Sunil Agarwal, Kolkata vs Acit, Circle-50(1), Kolkata, Kolkata on 28 February, 2019
Brahmin Educational Society vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 28 June, 1996
9. Thus, going by the reasoning of the Division Bench in CIT v. Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust [1995] 212 ITR 456 (Ker) and other decisions, it is clear that if ah institution exists solely for the purpose of education and it derives income from any other source and if that income is used only for the purpose of education, then it will come under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, It is clear from the memorandum of association of the society that chits are being conducted in order to make use of the commission for the purpose of education. There is no case for the Department that this amount is being used for any other purpose. In such circumstances, I hold that the Commissioner was wrong in holding that since chit is being conducted, which is a business activity, the petitioner is not entitled to exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act. The refusal is based under the provisions of Section 11(4A). According to me, this is a mistake committed by the authorities. Exemption sought for was under Section 10(22). Section 11(4) is applicable only with regard to the income from various properties. It cannot override Section 10(22). Hence, this reasoning is also not correct.
Harendrapal Singh Bratia vs Cit on 11 June, 2004
A plain reading of this provision would show that revisionary order under section 263 would have been passed upto 31-3-2001, because assessment order was passed on 12-2-1999. Now, we have to examine whether order passed under section 263 is barred by limitation or not. We are unable to agree with the contention of learned Departmental Representative that there is no requirement of service under section 263. Even if there is no requirement, any order passed by any authority the same has to be pronounced or published so that party affected has a means of knowing it. In this connection, we reproduce the para extracted by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. Shree Narayana Chandrika Trust (supra).
Asia Resort Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 11 March, 2003
9. After careful consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.J. Shelat, (supra) and followed by Kerala High Court in Government Woodwork Shop v. State of Kerala (supra), specially the observations at p. 69 and the decision in case of Shree Narayana Chandrika Trust (supra); we have no hesitation to hold that the proposition of law that "the order of any authority cannot be said to. be passed unless it is in some way pronounced or published or the party affected has the means of knowing it", still holds good, but the question, before invoking this proposition of law, arises as to whether the party, who is alleging a particular order to having not been made within the limitation, is able to establish that the order in question was neither pronounced nor published nor the affected party had the means of knowing it or had not been dispatched before the limitation expired or not.
A.P.S.E.B. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 April, 2004
5.1. The order dt. 7th March, 2002, passed under Section 263 was served on the assessee only on 16th Oct., 2002, when the chartered accountant appearing on behalf of the assessee had taken a copy of the same from the AO. It is his contention that the order under Section 263 has not been communicated to the assessee within the period of limitation and hence the order is barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust (1995) 212 ITR 456 (Ker).
A.P.S.E.B. vs Joint Commissioner Of I.T., Special ... on 5 April, 2004
.1. The order dated 7.3.2002 passed under Section 263 was served on the assessee only on 16.10.2002, when the Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the assessee had taken a copy of the same from the assessing officer. It is his contention that the order Under Section 263 has not been communicated to the assessee within the period of limitation and hence the order is barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Sree Narayana Chandrika Trust (212 ITR 456).
Infosys Technologies Ltd. vs The Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 28 October, 2005
• Kanda Rice Mills v. CIT(1989) 178 ITR 446 (P&H)
• Raton Silk Mills v. CIT (1996)S221 ITR(Guj)
CIT v. Narayana pai (1975)98 ITR 422 (Kar)
The above judgments' are not relevant to the case as, the issue here is of non application of provision of the DTAA. In this case, the AO has given full credit without applying DTAA.