Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Grameen Initiative for Women vs. DIT (E) (ITAT Mumbai)

Grameen Initiative for Women vs. DIT (E) (ITAT Mumbai)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 12, 2011 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (grameen_non_regn_charity.pdf)


Registration as Public Trust not necessary for s. 12A “Charity” registration

The assessee, a company registered under s. 25 of the Companies Act applied for registration as a “charitable institution u/s 12A of the I. T. Act. The Director (Exemptions), relying on Bhraman Madhav Murthi Mandal vs Joint Charity Commissioner 43 Comp Cas 361 (Bom), rejected the application on the ground that registration with the Charity Commissioner was a condition precedent for registration u/s 12A and that registration could not be granted for failure to produce the Charity Commissioner’s certificate. On appeal by the assessee, HELD allowing the appeal:

In Bhraman Madhav Murthi Mandal vs Joint Charity Commissioner, the Court dealt with the issue whether a company holding property for public religious and charitable purposes is required to be registered under the Public Trust Act. This does not mean that registration as a public trust is a condition precedent for grant of registration u/s 12A. There is no requirement in the Income-tax Act that the institution constituted for advancement of charity, must be registered as a trust under the Public Trusts Act (Agriculture Produce and Market Committee 291 ITR 419 (Bom) & Disha India Micro Credit (Del) followed)

Related Posts:

  • V.R.Enterprises vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) The assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents and the payments to the suppliers was through banking channels. The assessee had established corresponding sales before Ld. AO. The books of accounts were audited wherein quantitative details of stock was provided. We are of the considered opinion that there could…
  • Kaybee Pvt Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) Section 92A(2) governs the operation of Section 92A(1) by controlling the definition of participation in management or capital or control by one of the enterprise in the other enterprise. If a form of participation in management, capital or control is not recognized by Section 92A(2), even if it ends up…
  • Unnikrishnan V S vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) We find that so far as the ESOP benefit is concerned, while the income has arisen to the assessee in the current year, admittedly the related rights were granted to the assessee in 2007 and in consideration for the services which were rendered by the assessee prior to the rights…
  • ITO vs. Iraisaa Hotels Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) After the passing of the order of the Tribunal the Department has come forward with the final order of the SEBI by stating that, though, it was available at the time of hearing of appeal but it could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Thus, as could…
  • ITO vs. Arihant Estates Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) In the case on hand before us it is an undisputed fact that both assessees have treated the unsold flats as stock in trade in the books of account and the flats sold by them were assessed under the head ‘income from business’. Thus, respectfully following the above said decisions…
  • Mahesh H. Hinduja vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act. It is trite law, the assessee can file a revised return of income even in…

Related Judgements

  1. J. M. Share & Stock Brokers vs. JCIT (ITAT Mumbai) 

    Where the assessee was a stock broker but it was consistently following the practice of holding some shaes as ‘stock in trade’ and other shares as ‘investments’ and the question arose whether the profits on the sale of shares held as investments constituted a capital gain or business profits,…
  2. DCIT vs. Vertex Customer Services (ITAT Delhi) 

    Expl. 7 to s. 271 (1) (c) provides that in the case of an assessee who has entered into an international transaction, any amount added or disallowed in computing the total income u/s 92C (4) shall for purposes of s. 271 (1) (c) be deemed to represent income in…
  3. DCIT vs. Times Guaranty (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    The amendment made to s. 32(2) w.e.f AY 2002-03 is substantive. A substantive amendment is normally prospective in operation. S. 32(2) is a deeming provision which by legal fiction provides that the unabsorbed depreciation allowance u/s 32(1) is deemed to be depreciation allowance for the succeeding year(s). A deeming…
  4. DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench) 

    In Veerabhadra Rao 155 ITR 152 the Supreme Court held in the context of a loan that if the interest is offered to tax, the loan has been “taken into account in computing the income of the assessee” and qualifies for deduction u/s 36(1)(vii). The effect of the judgement…
  5. CLC & Sons vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi Special Bench) 

    In the interest of judicial discipline, a Member who has taken a view should not be party to a Special BenchRead more ›

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*