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

38. Unquestionably, objects (c) and (f) which provide for the activities completely religious in nature and restricted to the specific community of the respondent-trust are objects with religious purpose only. However, in respect to the other objects, in our view the fact that the said objects trace their source to the Holy Quran and resolve to abide

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

charitable purposes and not for purposes of profit and no part of the same will go directly or indirectly to any of the beneficiaries of the society or anybody specified in section 13[3] of the Income-tax Act, 1961; [6] the approval granted shall be subject to the provision of proviso to section 143[3]; [7] the approval shall

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

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.

10 ITR(Trib) 479(Chen.) held that: Allowing the appeal, that the violation of the Prohibition of Capitation Fees Act could not be a ground to take away the registration of a charitable organization. The cancellation of registration by the Commissioner under section 12A on the ground of accepting capitation fees was not sustainable

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

trust for its charitable activities, as such exemption u/s 11 of the Act cannot be denied. It was also noted by the Tribunal that profit motive was absent and the activities of that assessee cannot be considered as involving trade, commerce or business. But in the case of present assessee, the ld. AO clearly brought on assessee is charging interest

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

10. In the premises the appeals are allowed and the Income-tax references are answered in favour of the assessees and against the revenue. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs. 4. St. Jude's Convent School vs. Assistent Commissioner of Incoem- tax, [2017] 77 taxmann.com 173 (Amritsar -Trib.), wherein it has been observed

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

10 to 11.75% and made huge profit from year to year, after analyzing the facts of the assessee's case and his finding is not surmice or conjecture. (H) The ld. A.R. placed further reliance on the decision of the Visakhapatnam Tribunal in the case of SPANDANA (Rural and Urban Development Organisation) in ITA No. 364/Vizag/2009 dated 17.2.2010, wherein

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

section in the same or any other previous year.” 10. As already stated, the aforesaid amendment is prospective and will apply only from A.Y. 2015-16. In view of the above legal position, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference. Consequently, the issue raised by the Revenue in this

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

10, a crucial document required for income accumulation under Section 11(2), reflected only the amount but did not provide details of the investments made. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish details regarding whether these funds were entirely invested in the prescribed modes under section 11(5) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that there

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

10, a crucial document required for income accumulation under Section 11(2), reflected only the amount but did not provide details of the investments made. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to furnish details regarding whether these funds were entirely invested in the prescribed modes under section 11(5) of the Act. In response, the assessee submitted that there

ACHARYA SRI TULSI MAHAPRAGYA SEVA KENDRA CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

38-39 Renewal of approval of u/s 80G of the Act 22.03.2017 40 Provisional approval u/s 80G of the Act from 23.03.2022 41-42 23.03.2022 to AY 2024-25 4. The details of trust deed have been tabulated below: Particulars Date of Paper book 1 document page reference Original trust deed 17.08.2000 47-70 Amendment of trust deed for change

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

38,380. The Assessing Officer did not allow carry forward of this application of income to future years where surplus would be available by holding that the exemption under Section 11(1)(a) is allowable only for the application of the current year’s income. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) has allowed the claim of the assessee by following

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Trust vs. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Trust vs. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Trust vs. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Trust vs. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Trust vs. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Trust vs. CIT (2017) 390 ITR 547 (P&H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary