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.

23 of 50 in accordance with the provisions specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Income tax Act. iv) As per section 11(5) of the Income tax Act, the trust is expected to invest or deposit its money in the forms and modes prescribed therein. However, keeping the money collected by the Trust in the form

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:

23. In our opinion, once the registration is granted to the assessee by the CIT, AO cannot go into probing the objects and the purposes of the trust or institution and that is within the exclusive domain and jurisdiction of the CIT. What AO can do that he can at the most investigate the matter within the four corners

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Queens Educational Society 372 ITR 699 (SC) summed up the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) as follows: • Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating persons, the fact that it makes a surplus does not lead to the conclusion that

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

vi. Further, the various loans shown in the name of the trustees in the books of account of the trust, they are also disbelieved as it was not backed by any documentary evidence and details of source of funds were not furnished. Explanation of the assessee was rejected that it is the old loans of the trustee received

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’).

vi) of the Act.” Page 14 of 22 15. The ITAT Bangalore bench in M/s Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Committee Gangavathi v CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections 11, 12 & 13, a distinction has been drawn between 'charitable purpose' and 'religious purposes

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

vi) of the Act.” 15. The ITAT Bangalore bench in M/s Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Committee Gangavathi v CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections 11, 12 & 13, a distinction has been drawn between 'charitable purpose' and 'religious purposes', but there is no definition

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

vi) of the Act.” 15. The ITAT Bangalore bench in M/s Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Committee Gangavathi v CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections 11, 12 & 13, a distinction has been drawn between 'charitable purpose' and 'religious purposes', but there is no definition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. DR. T. M. A. PAI FOUNDATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

vi) and S. 10(2)(xiv) under the 1922 Act or under S. 32(1)(ii) and 35(2)(iv) of the 1922 Act - qua the same expenditure. Is then the use of the words "in respect of the same previous year" in clause (d) of the proviso to S. 10

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

vi) To give relief either in cash or kind to public in general and specially those affected by riots, flood, famines, fires, epidemics, droughts or other calamities. (vii) To purchase, acquire on lease or otherwise, immovable properties and to construct, maintain and manage the same or other movable properties necessary for the purposes of the Trust. 3 ITA Nos.1265

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

vi) To give relief either in cash or kind to public in general and specially those affected by riots, flood, famines, fires, epidemics, droughts or other calamities. (vii) To purchase, acquire on lease or otherwise, immovable properties and to construct, maintain and manage the same or other movable properties necessary for the purposes of the Trust. 3 ITA Nos.1265

ITI EDUCATION COMMITTEE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

vi) of sub section (23C) of sec. 10 of the Act on the ground that the appellant was existing only for the purpose of making profit. The facts set out by the Assessing Officer in paragraphs 19 to 23 of the assessment order, while denying the exemption u/s 10(23C), are reproduced below:- “19. On, going through the facts

M/S THE AUGUSTINIAN SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. ASST.DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

charitable trust, is engaged in the activities of running educational institution, medical facility for the poor and social centres for women and children. It filed its return of income for the AY Page 2 of 11 2007-08 on 06.10.2007 declaring NIL taxable income, after claiming accumulation of amount u/s. 11(2) in Form 10. During the year, the assessee

DY.DIT, BANGALORE vs. MAHARANI LAKSHMI AMMANI COLLEGE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

vi) and S. 10(2)(xiv) under the 1922 Act or under S. 32(1)(ii) and 35(2)(iv) of the 1922 Act - qua the same expenditure. Is then the use of the words "in respect of the same previous year" in clause (d) of the proviso to S.10

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SAGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23 4. Returned unserved with remarks " No such address" 6 5. Returned unserved with remarks " Not known" 9 6. Returned unserved with remarks " Not Claimed" 1 7. Persons sought extension 14 8. No. of person denied having given donation 10 9. No. of persons agreed having given donation and date & 8 amount of donation match with seized material 74 10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI V C CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23 4. Returned unserved with remarks " No such address" 6 5. Returned unserved with remarks " Not known" 9 6. Returned unserved with remarks " Not Claimed" 1 7. Persons sought extension 14 8. No. of person denied having given donation 10 9. No. of persons agreed having given donation and date & 8 amount of donation match with seized material 74 10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23 4. Returned unserved with remarks " No such address" 6 5. Returned unserved with remarks " Not known" 9 6. Returned unserved with remarks " Not Claimed" 1 7. Persons sought extension 14 8. No. of person denied having given donation 10 9. No. of persons agreed having given donation and date & 8 amount of donation match with seized material 74 10

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23 4. Returned unserved with remarks " No such address" 6 5. Returned unserved with remarks " Not known" 9 6. Returned unserved with remarks " Not Claimed" 1 7. Persons sought extension 14 8. No. of person denied having given donation 10 9. No. of persons agreed having given donation and date & 8 amount of donation match with seized material 74 10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SRI. BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

23 4. Returned unserved with remarks " No such address" 6 5. Returned unserved with remarks " Not known" 9 6. Returned unserved with remarks " Not Claimed" 1 7. Persons sought extension 14 8. No. of person denied having given donation 10 9. No. of persons agreed having given donation and date & 8 amount of donation match with seized material 74 10