Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.86 seconds)

Hardayal Charitable & Educational ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii on 15 March, 2013

I.T.A. No.285/Lkw/2019 6 Assessment Year:N.A. 6.1 The above objects enumerated in the trust deed have not been mentioned in the definition of charitable objects u/s 2(15) but they fall into the category of objects of general public utility. Therefore, as regards the charitable nature of objects, we do not find any hesitation to hold that the objects of the society are charitable in nature. The learned CIT (Exemptions) has not commented anything adverse regarding the objects of the assessee inspite of the fact that copy of trust deed was available with him. On receipt of application by learned CIT (Exemptions), the learned CIT (Exemptions) issued a questionnaire vide letter dated 21/02/2019 listing therein 25 queries to which the assessee filed reply vide letter dated 18/03/2019, placed at pages 20-38 of the paper book wherein the point-wise reply to the queries raised was submitted. The examination of questionnaire along with its answers proves that learned CIT (Exemptions) has gone through the copy of trust deed and has also gone through the objects clause of the assessee and must have gone through the reply to questionnaire. In fact learned CIT (Exemptions) has noted down that the assessee had filed reply vide letter dated 18/03/2019. While passing the order, rejecting the application of the assessee, one of the objections of learned CIT (Exemptions) is that the assessee had not filed complete reply to its questionnaire which is factually incorrect as the assessee has filed point-wise reply to the questionnaire and the copy of reply is placed at pages 20-38 of the paper book. The other objection of learned CIT (Exemptions) is that books of account were not produced for examination, which fact is also incorrect as in the same reply dated 18/03/2019, vide point No. 21, the assessee had submitted that relevant papers, documents, registers and books of account are being produced before him for his verification. As regards the objection of learned CIT (Exemptions) regarding non carrying out of activities, the Hon'ble Supreme I.T.A. No.285/Lkw/2019 7 Assessment Year:N.A. Court, in the case of Ananda Social & Educational Trust (supra), has clearly held that the term 'activities' in the provision includes 'proposed activities.' Hon'ble court further went to hold that while considering the application for registration u/s 12A of the Act, the Commissioner is bound to consider whether the objects of the trust are genuinely charitable in nature and whether the activities which the trust is proposed to carry on are genuine in the sense that they are in line with the objects of the trust. For the sake of completeness, the relevant part of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court is reproduced below:
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Exemption ... vs M/S Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal ... on 26 September, 2019

Further reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT (Exemptions) vs. Reham foundation reported in [2019] 418 ITR 205 (All) and submitted that this judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is fully applicable to the assessee and accordingly the claim of registration u/s 12A deserves to be granted by Hon'ble Tribunal. As regards the reliance placed by learned CIT (Exemptions) on the judgments cited by him, Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that first decision in the case of National Institute of Aeronautical Engineering Education Society [2009] 181 Taxman 205 (UK) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances as in that case there was a clear finding that the dominant object of the society was to earn profits I.T.A. No.285/Lkw/2019 4 Assessment Year:N.A. under the garb of education.
Allahabad High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Union Land And Building Society Pvt. ... on 10 February, 1971

Ms. Bhati, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, fairly drew our attention to a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in IT Appeal No. 36 of 2013 titled as "Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. R.S. Bajaj Society" which has taken the same view as that of the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment. The Allahabad High Court has also referred to a similar view taken by the High Courts of Karnataka and Punjab & Haryana.
1