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 25. In the case of Ghulam Mohidin Trust (supra), by reference two questions of law were referred for the esteemed opinion of the Hon’ble High Court. Both the questions are as under : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right that the trust was not entitled to claim exemption from

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

29. Section 12 AA (4) provides that: - 4) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance

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

29,00,000/- 15,85,90,000/- 63,14,90,000/-\nSub-Total\n115,40,37,713/- 30,01,23,000/- 145,41,60,713/-\nTotal funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n145,41,60,713/-\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed explanation to counter the above\nallegation. The Assessee Trust (RECT) vide

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.

29.................................. 30.According to Section 2(15), the expression “charitable purpose” has been defined by way of an inclusive definition so as to include relief to the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility. A catena of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the said provision and especially the expression “any other object

M/S RABIYA BASARI BRAHAMATH-ULLAH ALLAYHA CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

29.................................. 30.According to Section 2(15), the expression “charitable purpose” has been defined by way of an inclusive definition so as to include relief to the poor, education, medical relief and advancement of any other object of general public utility. A catena of decisions of this Court which have interpreted the said provision and especially the expression “any other object

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

29 (w.e.f. 1.4.1999).] [* * *] [ Certain words omitted by Act 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

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.

29 of 50 accounts of the trust and there is no allegation that there was any unaccounted capitation fees in the hands of the assessee. It is also established by the assessee that trust kept the cash with the Trustees for safe keeping and that action of the trustees cannot be doubted. It is natural that the assessee’s place

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, 502, 2Nd Floor, 5Th ‘C’ Main, 5Th Cross, 2Nd Block, Hrbr Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aaatb6131D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R

10 4.3.1 We have heard the rival contentions and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial pronouncements referred to. The issue for adjudication before us is whether the ld. CIT(A) was right in directing the AO to allow the assessee accumulation of income for application to the extent of 15% of gross receipts

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

DHWANI SHRISTI FOUNDATION ,BAGANALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

29 (w.e.f. 1.4.1999).] [* * *] [ Certain words omitted by Act 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

DHWANI SHRISTI FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

29 (w.e.f. 1.4.1999).] [* * *] [ Certain words omitted by Act 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

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

29 of 42 "6.10. We hold that it is an established position in law that a proviso which is inserted to remedy unintended consequences and to make the provision workable, a proviso which supplies an obvious omission in the section and is required to be read into the section to give the section a reasonable interpretation, requires to be treated