SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

20 of 23 and that too by way of contribution to another trust. Relevant observations are as under:- “The line of distinction between religious purposes and charitable purposes is very thin and no watertight compartment between the two activities can be established. Unless the objective of the charitable trust in question itself is to spend its income for a particular

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

20 of 23 and that too by way of contribution to another trust. Relevant observations are as under:- “The line of distinction between religious purposes and charitable purposes is very thin and no watertight compartment between the two activities can be established. Unless the objective of the charitable trust in question itself is to spend its income for a particular

SRI. MARAMMA TEMPLE SEVA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No818/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : Na) Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust, No.11, Maramma Temple Street, 1St Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru 560 003 .. Appellant Pan : Aants4131R V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sudhakar Rao, Cit – Dr-I Heard On : 21.10.2015 Pronounced On : 30.10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

10. As observed by Mukherjea in Hindu Law and Religious and Charitable Trusts, Second edn., page 11, there is no line of demarcation in the Hindu system between religion and charity. Indeed, charity is regarded as part of religion, for, gifts both for religious and charitable purposes are impelled by the desire to acquire religious merit. According to Pandit Prannath

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

10. He submitted With respect to ground No.3 that the ld. CIT(E) has failed to bring out that the objects of the trust are not charitable in nature and its activities are not carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust, the ld. AR submitted that ld. CIT(E) has raised this issue, he referred

SADIYA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. Nos.422 & 1632/Bang/2013 M/S. Sadiya Educational & Charitable Trust, Mattadgadde Road, Sadiya Nagar, Shiralkoppa-577 428 …. Appellant.

20 & 21, which is a broad cross section of general public itself is an object of advancement of general public utility, which is a charitable object along with the other objects No.2, 3, 8, 16 and 17, which are not confined for the benefit of Muslim community but to the public at large and thus all objects are charitable

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

20 of 2002, Section 30 (w.e.f. 1.4.2003).] [or clause (23-AA) or clause (23-C)] [ Substituted by Act 11 of 1987, Section 35, for " or clause (23-C)" (w.e.f. 1.4.1988).] of section 10: [Provided that where an institution or fund derives any income, being profits and gains of business, the condition that such income would not be liable to inclusion

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10(20) of the Act was denied by the AO in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated October 30, 2018. 19.1 Subsequent to the assessment order, the assessee applied for registration as a charitable trust

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10(20) of the Act was denied by the AO in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated October 30, 2018. 19.1 Subsequent to the assessment order, the assessee applied for registration as a charitable trust

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

10(20) of the Act was denied by the AO in the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, dated October 30, 2018. 19.1 Subsequent to the assessment order, the assessee applied for registration as a charitable trust

SHROUTA VIJNAM GURUKULAM,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTIONS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : Na M/S. Shrouta Vijnan Gurukulam, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), 1 Nidagod, Targod B. O. Ward – 1, Arasapur, Mangaluru. Uttara Kannada – 561 402. Pan : Aants 0655 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prakash S Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(E)’S Order Dated 22.02.2024 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

10. To reiterate, 'Explanation 3 does not require the ascertainment of whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution or fund's charitable purpose is of a religious nature. If it did, it would read differently. It requires the ascertainment of whether there is one purpose within the institution or fund's overall charitable purpose which is wholly

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

10. To reiterate, 'Explanation 3 does not require the ascertainment of whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution or fund's charitable purpose is of a religious nature. If it did, it would read differently. It requires the ascertainment of whether there is one purpose within the institution or fund's overall charitable purpose which is wholly

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

10. To reiterate, 'Explanation 3 does not require the ascertainment of whether the whole or substantially the whole of the institution or fund's charitable purpose is of a religious nature. If it did, it would read differently. It requires the ascertainment of whether there is one purpose within the institution or fund's overall charitable purpose which is wholly

M/S. A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION,MANGALORE vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 10(23C) provides 29. withdrawal of the approval granted in certain situations and the same reads as under:- “Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) is notified by the Central Government or is approved by the prescribed authority, as the case

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Act. In this regard, the CIT(A) has rightly observed that the conclusions of the AO are without any material and that the receipt of capitation fees has not been established nor were there any proceedings against the assessee under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

sections of people without any discrimination of caste, creed race or religion. (c) To assist, promote, establish, run, takeover and or manage orphanage, rescue and/or half-way homes for destitute, aged and the inform and/or senior citizens without discrimination of caste, creed, race, religion, status or standing. (d) To give out grants, scholarships, stipends, rewards, awards, certificates, financial

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

10 ITA Nos.1265 & 1266 /Bang/2024 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust section 11(2) as applicable at the relevant time would yield the following result: (i) If the income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes during the previous year is Rs. 1 lakh and if Rs. 20

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

10 ITA Nos.1265 & 1266 /Bang/2024 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust section 11(2) as applicable at the relevant time would yield the following result: (i) If the income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes during the previous year is Rs. 1 lakh and if Rs. 20

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

trust under Section 12A, as clarified in Explanation 2 to section 11(1) of the Act. Moreover, the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence proving that the amounts were spent for charitable purposes. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to demonstrate that the expenditure qualifies for exemption under section 11 of the Act. In the absence

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

trust under Section 12A, as clarified in Explanation 2 to section 11(1) of the Act. Moreover, the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence proving that the amounts were spent for charitable purposes. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to demonstrate that the expenditure qualifies for exemption under section 11 of the Act. In the absence