M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

capital expenditure and provisions for expenses. While such items may generally not be allowable as deductions under the head "profits and gains of business or profession" in the context of regular business entities, the same do qualify as application of income under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act in the case of charitable or religious trusts

M/S. S I MEDIA LLP, ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

gains, otherwise it would lead to double deduction of the same expenses viz. interest on housing loan on acquisition of capital asset, which is not permissible. The assessee reliance on judgment and orders of Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation(supra) , in our humble considered view is not correct, as it was in context of computing firstly, application of income

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

capital account. Therefore, the disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act should be restricted to the shortfall of 85% of total income from actual amount applied. Hence, the shortfall of Rs. 50,23,822/- (1,47,63,150 – 97,39,328) should be brought to tax instead of Rs.76,29,084/- as done in intimation and accordingly granted relief

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

capital so as to advance the loan. Borrowed funds of the assessee have been utilised to lend loans to the public and the rate of interest charged is with a view to generate profit. xv. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer has held that the assessee is engaged in business activity and denied the exemption under section

CITY HOSPITAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

capital expenditure applied during the year as application of income u/s. 11(1) of the Act as well as accumulation of 15% of income from such property which shall not be included in the total income. On going through the Income & Expenditure A/c for last 3 years reproduced by the ld. CIT(E) we take a note of the fact

KK FOUNDATION AND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1 , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

Charitable Trust, Bangalore Page 3 of 6 2.2 The assessee had, in the return of income declared long term capital gain

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

capital so as to advance the loan. Borrowed\nfunds of the assessee have been utilised to lend loans to the public and\nthe rate of interest charged is with a view to generate profit.\nXv.\nThe ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer has\nheld that the assessee is engaged in business activity and denied\nthe exemption under section

SMT. BRIDGET ANTHONY(LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MR. ELEVATHINGAL JOSEPH ANTHONY),BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

Charitable Trust Vs CIT (Exemptions) 49 IR (Trib) 276 • Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT 2016 (7) TMI 1435 8.6 He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bangalore Tribunal in Sri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust ITA Nos. 500 to 506/Bang/2020 for the above proposition. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below; “231. The AO failed

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

capital so as to advance the loan. The appellant is providing loans by association with various commercial banks by raising loans from them. Such kind of micro finance activity cannot be termed as charitable activity rather it is a business activity. In order to become a charitable activity, the institution must have advance loans at a subsidized rate of interest

M/S. SRI. SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2021-22

capitation fee received in cash but not recorded in the books of accounts. 11. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted its reply. However, the learned PCIT found that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims with documentary evidence. After considering the assessee’s reply, the materials seized during the search, and the statements of various individuals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD), KOLAR

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

M/S. SRI. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

M/S. KSRTC PASSENGERS ACCIDENT RELIEF FUND TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains, or other sources, the word "income" should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection

M/S. KSRTC PASSENGERS ACCIDENT RELIEF FUND TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

gains, or other sources, the word "income" should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purposes of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise. It should be noted, in this connection