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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

102-137 of trustees Amendment of trust deed due to change in number 19.10.2016 138-173 of trustees 5. Thus, it can be seen that the Petitioner is registered u/s 12A and approved u/s 80G for more than 2 decades. 6. The Petitioner made application for renewal of 80G approval on 28.03.2024. However, since it was made in the wrong

INDEPENDENT AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEDIA FOUNDATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

charitable trust (supra) is not correct as that was the case for granting of the registration to the trust where the trust has spent 29% of its income to the religious objects but 71% of its income to the objects of the trust, where the honourable High Court held that at the time of registration of the trust

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

102 Ballari PAN NO : AADCM7259F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V Chandrashekar, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of CIT(A) dated 25.8.2022 for the assessment year 2009-10. The revenue

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

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

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

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

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

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

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

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

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

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

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

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

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

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

SHRI. SHRIDEVI CHARITABLE TRUST ,TUMKUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2023-24

Charitable Trust Shivadeepthi, 3rd Cross Someshwara Extension PCIT (Central) Vs. Tumkur 572 102 Bangalore PAN NO : AADTS8255N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of PCIT passed

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, BANGALORE vs. SRI SHRIDEVI CHARITABLE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18

102. PAN – AADTS 8255 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri C Sandeep, C.A Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 28-12-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 12-01-2021 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by revenue against order dated 16/09/2020 passed by learnt CIT (A)-14, Bangalore on following grounds

SHARADA FOUNDATION,BAILUR vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

102, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District, Karnataka. …. Appellant. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri H. V. Gowthama, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III (D.R) Date of Hearing : 20.10.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : 1. These appeals by the assessee are directed against

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

trust or institution as are material for the purpose of achieving its objectives as mentioned in section 12AB(1)(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. However, in the present case, the ld. PCIT invoked the provisions of section 12AB(4)(a)(ii) of the Act as stood in the assessment year 2022-23. The objection

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI, BALLARI vs. MS AL BADAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, BALLARI

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

102. PAN: AABTA 7444B RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajkumar Hanchal, CA Revenue by : Smt. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 18.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 ORDER Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Judicial Member These are 3 appeals, 2 appeals are filed by the revenue for the AYs 2016-17 & 2017-18 and one appeal has been filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1,BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. ABB INDIA FOUNDATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2018-19

section 11(2) of the Act to the assessee. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT(E) Vs. Bochasanwasi Shir Akshar Purushottam Public Charitable Trust [2019], 102

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted