Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Section 80G in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
New Life In Christ Evangelistic ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 4 August, 1998
15. The Co-ordinate Bench has clearly held that the decision of
Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of New Life in Christ
Evangelistic Association vs CIT & Another, (supra), in which it has
been held that at the stage of grant of registration u/s 12A of the
Act, the only enquiry which can possibly be made would be whether
the Society has actually made an application in time and whether the
accounts of the Society are maintained in the manner as suggested by
this section. Beyond that the scope of enquiry would not go. The
Bench has further held that even though decision of Hon'ble Madras
High Court was rendered u/s 12A when procedural section 12AA was
not available in the statute book yet the ratio decidendi of Hon'ble
Madras High Court(supra) would equally apply even after insertion of
section 12AA because it is only a procedural section.
Section 11 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central vs L.G. Ramamurthi And Ors. on 26 October, 1976
The Hon'ble Madras High Court has reiterated this legal position
while deciding the case of CIT vs L.G.Ramamurthi & Others, 110 ITR
453, inter alia. Accordingly, the legal position on the issue becomes
crystallized that at the time of consideration of registration, it is not
a sine qua non that the Trust must have started its activities. In case
the Trust has started its activities, the ld. CIT can examine them as
has been envisaged in the Act. This above conclusion is safeguarded
by sub-clause(3) incorporated in section 12AA vide which if after
granting registration it is found by the ld. CIT that the activities of
the Trust are not carried out in furtherance of its charitable objects,
16 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011
he can cancel the registration granted to the Trust. So, when
these provisions are read in conjunction, and a harmonious
interpretation is given to them, we find that the view taken by the Co-
ordinate Benches in numerous successive cases, some of which we have
mentioned herein above, is very logical, and the same we are bound to
follow.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Highway Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. (No. ... on 6 August, 1996
22. In such a case, the question arises as to whether a decision of
another High Court, not being directly of the Jurisdictional High
Court, albeit in this case, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High
Court is available by implication, which has been followed by us in the
case of JITO Chennai Chapter as discussed above, is a binding
precedent or not. It has been well accepted that though legally,
judgment of another High Court is not a binding precedent yet a
decision of another High Court should be followed. It is also a well
settled dictum of law now. When there is no contrary decision, a
decision of another High Court has to be followed by the Tribunal.
The income-tax is a Central Act and therefore, the Tribunal should
follow the decision of another High Court. It was held in the case of
CIT vs Highway Construction Co. P. Ltd, 237 ITR 234(Gauhati)
wherein the High Court has held that when there is a decision of
different High Court and there is no contrary decision, it will be just
and proper for the Tribunal to follow the said decision. In this case
also a direct decision of Karnataka High Court is available. In fact,
there is a decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court but if it is not
treated being directly on the issue [being rendered u/s 12A only] the
only decision on this issue is that of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court
(supra) which is directly applicable on this issue. Likewise, a decision
of a Co-ordinate Bench has a binding effect and the Co-ordinate
Benches are bound to follow the view expressed by the another Bench
of the Tribunal unless the earlier view was rendered per incuriam.
Section 13 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Director Of Income-Tax Exemptions vs Meenakshi Amma Endowment Trust on 12 January, 2011
19. Now the question arises as to whether there is any decision
available on this issue of any High Court which may have been
rendered after the incorporation of the provision of section 12AA on
the statute book. The answer to this question is YES. There is one
decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of
Director of income Tax(Exemptions) vs Meenakshi Amma Endowment
13 I.T.A. No. 495/Mds/2011
Trust, (2011) 50 DTR (Kar) 243, which is directly on this issue.
We may mention that a decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court
is also available which applies, mutatis mutandis, even after
incorporation of procedural provision of section 12AA and the Co-
ordinate Benches have followed the same as discussed above. The
Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, while deciding the above case has very
succinctly examined this issue in the following words: