Home ›

Search Results For: P. N. Arora

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT: ,
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 8, 2020 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 24, 2020 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 11/ 12AA: The only requirement for granting registration is that the objects of the society should be charitable in nature and activities are genuine (i) A trust may be of a public charitable nature even if the control of the trust property is not vested in the public but is retained by the settlors, (ii) Registration u/s 12A cannot be declined on the ground that the Trust Deed does not contain "dissolution clause". This is totally irrelevant & beyond the scope of enquiry contemplated u/s 12A. of the Act, (iii) Registration cannot be refused for non furnishing of registration with the Registrar of Societies. Registration with the Registrar of Societies is not a precondition for granting registration u/s 12A.

In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(E) denied the registration by observing that the head of the society is restricted to be from Shree Dhar Vansh and no other member of the Sabha will have any right to raise any objection. In my opinion that cannot also be a ground to refuse the registration when the object of the assessee society are charitable in nature. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Smt. Ganesh Devi Rami Devi Charity Trust Vs. CIT reported at 71 ITR 696 held as under: ” (i) a trust may be of a public charitable nature even if the control of the trust property was not vested in the public but was retained by the settlers

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: October 22, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 16, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Condonation of delay of 571 days: Mistake of counsel may be taken into account in condoning delay. Claim that the delay was caused by Counsel not communicating the order has to be accepted unless it is shown that blame put on counsel is with malafide intentions in order to cover up mistake/lapse on the part of the assessee. As per human conduct and probabilities, a professional counsel cannot be expected to admit his lapses as it may affect his reputation. Also, if the appeal is adjudicated on merits, refusing to condone the delay is an error (All imp judgements referred)

When an assessee authorizes a counsel to appear on his behalf, such authorization is given by placing faith on the legal expertise of the Counsel and also with the hope that the counsel shall take care of the interest of the assessee. Hence, when there is a lapse on the part of the legal counsel, in my view, the assessee should not be found fault with, unless it is shown that the blame put on the counsel with malafide intentions in order to cover up the mistake/lapse on the part of the assessee.

Read more ›

Posted on by editor — 5 Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 5, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 8, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
(i) Dharmada collections are not taxable as income, (ii) S. 50C does not apply to the purchaser of property

(i) It is not disputed that Dharmarth receipts are not taxable. This is as per the CBDT Circular (supra), as also the following decisions: i. CIT Vs. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) ii. CIT Vs. …

Nitco Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Amritsar) Read More »