Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.47 seconds)
Documents citing Gauri Shankerji Deity And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 12 October, 1982

Satyawati Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 27 August, 2002

"9. It is evident from the above decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court that a commercial tenancy is invaluable and has got distinct features and characteristics of its own different from that of a residential tenancy. None of the peculiar or unique features present in the case of commercial tenancies exist in the case of residential tenancies. In the above background, if the legislature thought it fit to afford a greater and extended right or benefit to the heirs of the statutory tenants of commercial premises and not to extend such rights to the heirs of the statutory tenants of residential premises, we would say that it only stands to reason and reckons the stark realities of the prevailing situation. The protection afforded by the Rent Act of a tenant after the termination of the tenancy and to the heirs of the tenants is only a creation of the Act and it is open to the legislature to make appropriate provisions in that behalf....."
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 8 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bhag Kaur And Harnam Singh Zoria, Dasuya vs Commissioner Of Income Tax ( ... on 1 March, 2023

As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, corpus donation/grants would be exempt only under Section 11(1)(d) and an assessee can claim benefit u/s 11 only when such assessee is I.T.A. No.16/Asr/2021 4 Assessment Year: 2020-21 registered u/s 12A or 12AA. This assertion is not only backed by the statute but also by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) [1998] and decisions of various other Hon'ble High Courts like: (A) New Life in Christ Evangelsit Association vs. CIT reported in 246 ITR 532 (Madras) [2001 ];(B) CIT vs. Red Rose School reported in 212 Cl'R (All) 394;(C) M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre vs. ITAT reported in 251 ITR 852 (Mumbai) [ 2001];(D) CIT vs. Otacamund Gymkhana Club reported in 110 ITR 392 (Madras) [1977] and(E) Gouri Shankar Deity vs. Union of India 145 ITR 67 (MP) [1984].
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajbir Pal & Anr. vs Kanwar Partap Singh on 25 April, 2023

29. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in the face of Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar (supra), which had been taken into account in Satyawati Sharma (supra), and Gauri Shanker and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), which had not been referred to at all, a 2- Judge Division Bench of the Supreme Court could not have struck down the distinction between commercial and residential properties in Section 14(1)(e), especially when a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had refrained from adjudicating by way of legislating on the instant issue.
Delhi High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 2 - S Prasad - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Smt. Nankibai on 11 June, 1986

4. Shri B.M. Gupta, the learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, argued that the assessment order under Section 143(1) was wiped off as soon as application under Section 143(2)(a) is made by the assessee objecting to the above assessment and then the ITO has to complete a fresh assessment under Clause (b) of Section 143(3). The counsel further argued that this is what in fact the ITO has done as is clear from the title of the order which says 'it is an order under Section 143(2)(a) and 143(3)(b) of the Income-tax Act'. Shri Gupta referred to the provisions of Section 153 and said that it bars passing of any order of assessment after two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The assessment year being 1980-81, all orders of assessment were required to be completed by 31-3-1983 and, thus, the order passed on 12-4-1983 was clearly barred by time. Shri Gupta relied upon the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the cases of CIT v. Tej Kumar Sethi (HUF) [1983] 143 ITR 757, Gauri Shankerji Deity v. Union of India [1984] 145 ITR 67, ITO v. V. Ethirajulu Chettiar [1983] 5 ITD 53 (Mad.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chameli Singh And Others Etc. vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 December, 1995

In Gauri Shanker and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , in the context of eviction of a tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, this Court observed that the right to shelter is not Constitutionally guaranteed right. Restrictions on the right to shelter placed by the statute on the statutory tenants were not violative of Article 21. The ratio must be understood in the light of the statutory operation under the Rent Control Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 147 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Lions Club Sonipat Charitable Trust, ... vs Cit(E), Chandigarh on 15 September, 2022

As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, corpus contribution would be exempt only under. Section 11(1 )(d) and an assessee can claim benefit u/s 11 only when such assessee is registered u/s 12A or 12AA. This assertion is not only backed by the statute but also by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) [1998] and decisions of various other Hon'ble High Courts like: (A) .New Life in Christ Evangelsit Association vs. CIT reported in 246 ITR'532- (Madras) [2001]; (B) CIT vs. Red Rose School reported in 212 CTR (All) 394; (C) M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre vs. ITAT reported in 251 ITR 852 (Mumbai) [ 2001]; (D) CIT vs. Otacamund Gymkhana Club reported in 110 ITR 392 (Madras) [1977] and (E) Gouri Shankar Deity vs. Union of India 145 ITR 67 (MP) [1984], Before the period of grant of registration, all voluntary contributions (including the ones with specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus) are the income of a charitable, religious or charitable cum religious trust. Therefore, in the present case, the corpus fund shown by the applicant on record during FY 2019-20 is the income of the applicant and, thus, the trust/society becomes liable to pay tax for that year which has not been paid. The applicant should have added the amount shown against corpus funds during the year into its income and then it should have filed the correct ITR and paid taxes. Unless the legitimate tax against the income, as discussed above, is paid, the application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act cannot be considered. The trust has illegally taken the benefit of provisions of the Income Tax Act for getting tax exemption benefits and has tried to subvert the Income Tax laws. This act of the applicant is unacceptable and the jurisdictional assessing officer will be intimated to take remedial action in the matter.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yadav Kalyan Samiti , Faridabad vs Cit Exmptions Chandigarh , Chandigarh on 30 August, 2023

As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, corpus donation/grants would be exempt only under Section 11(1 )(d) and an assessee can claim benefit u/s 11 only when such assessee is registered u/s 12A or 12AA. This assertion is not only backed by the statute but also by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. U P Forest Corporation, 230 ITR 945 (SC) [1998] and decisions of various other Hon'ble High Courts like: (A) New Life in Christ Evangelsit Association vs. CIT reported in 246 ITR 532 (Madras) [2001]; (B) CIT vs. Red Rose School reported in 212 CTR (All) 394; (C) M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre vs. ITAT reported in 251 ITR 852 (Mumbai) [ 2001]; (D) CIT vs. Otacamund Gymkhana Club reported in 110 ITR 392 (Madras) [1977] and (E) Gouri Shankar Deity vs. Union of India 145 ITR 67 (MP) [1984], 4 ITA no. 2052/Del/2021 Before the period of grant of registration, all voluntary contributions (including the ones with specific direction that they shall form part of the corpus) are the income of a charitable, religious or charitable cum religious trust. Therefore, in the present case, the corpus fund shown by the applicant on record during FY 2016-17 and 2017-18 (and for any other previous year) is the income of the applicant and, thus, the trust/society becomes liable to pay tax for that year. Further, the ITR for A.Y. 2017-18 and 2018-19 corresponding to F.Y. 2016-17 and 2017-18 filed by the applicant does not include the income shown as corpus during the year and, therefore, no tax against the said income has been paid. The applicant should have added the amount shown against corpus/restricted funds during the year into its income and then it should have filed the correct ITR and paid taxes. Unless the legitimate tax against the income, as discussed above, is paid, the application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act cannot be considered.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next