Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal reinstates charity's registration, citing lack of evidence and violation of natural justice.</h1> <h3>Sri Mayapur Dham Pilgrim and Versus C.I.T. (Exemptions) Kolkata</h3> Sri Mayapur Dham Pilgrim and Versus C.I.T. (Exemptions) Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the cancellation of registration granted under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Allegation of the trust receiving bogus donations and involvement in money laundering activities.3. Adherence to principles of natural justice, specifically the right to cross-examine witnesses.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Cancellation of Registration Granted under Section 12A:The Assessee, a charitable trust, had its registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, canceled by the CIT (Exemptions), Kolkata, based on allegations that the trust's activities were not genuine and were not carried out in accordance with its objects. The Tribunal noted that the Assessee had been carrying out activities such as maintaining guest houses for pilgrims, constructing roads and gardens, providing medical camps, and distributing food and clothes to the poor, which were charitable in nature.The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) relied on statements from officials of SHG and PH, who alleged that SHG and PH were involved in providing bogus donation entries. However, these statements did not specifically implicate the Assessee in any wrongdoing. The Assessee had duly reflected the donations received in its books of accounts and utilized them for charitable purposes. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the cancellation of registration was not justified as the activities of the trust were genuine and carried out in accordance with its objects.2. Allegation of the Trust Receiving Bogus Donations and Involvement in Money Laundering Activities:The CIT(E) alleged that the Assessee received a bogus donation of Rs. 18 lakhs from SHG and PH, which was involved in providing accommodation entries for donations. The CIT(E) based this conclusion on statements from SHG and PH officials, who claimed that donations were returned to donors after retaining a commission.The Tribunal found that these allegations were based on surmises and conjectures without concrete evidence. The Assessee had denied any involvement in money laundering activities and had provided documentation showing the receipt and utilization of donations for charitable purposes. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no material evidence to prove that the Assessee had returned the donation amount to SHG and PH or was part of any money laundering scheme.3. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice, Specifically the Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses:The Tribunal highlighted that the CIT(E) did not provide the Assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine the officials of SHG and PH, whose statements were used as the basis for canceling the registration. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, which held that reliance on statements without allowing cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and renders the order a nullity.The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) failed to confront the Assessee with the letters and statements from SHG and PH officials and did not allow cross-examination, which was a serious flaw in the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration was not sustainable.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(E) canceling the registration granted to the Assessee under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concluded that the Assessee's activities were genuine and carried out in accordance with its objects. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, specifically the right to cross-examine witnesses, which was not afforded to the Assessee in this case. The appeal by the Assessee was allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found