ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1)(c) of the Act. The relevant observations of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC are as follows: 8.1 Benefit under section 11 of the Act cannot be withdrawn for entire transaction: 4. Section 11 of the Income-Tax Act. 1961 (the Act) excludes from the income of charitable or religious trusts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

1)(c) of the Act. The relevant observations of the learned CIT(A)/NFAC are as follows: 8.1 Benefit under section 11 of the Act cannot be withdrawn for entire transaction: 4. Section 11 of the Income-Tax Act. 1961 (the Act) excludes from the income of charitable or religious trusts

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 reported in 303 ITR 360 wherein the Hon’ble Court held has that the balance in current account is also treated as investment as per section 11(5) of the Act to claim the deduction provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 19.1 The assessee in form 35 (statement of facts before the ld. CIT-A) also submitted

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 reported in 303 ITR 360 wherein the Hon’ble Court held has that the balance in current account is also treated as investment as per section 11(5) of the Act to claim the deduction provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 19.1 The assessee in form 35 (statement of facts before the ld. CIT-A) also submitted

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

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 PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order

ABHERAJ BALDOTA FOUNDATION ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

trust. Thus, income from voluntary contributions are deemed as income specified under section 11 (1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Act. The intention of the legislature, as could be seen from a reading of section 11 of the Act, is to allow a charitable

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:

c) and (d) would be applicable to a trust which is either for charitable purposes or religious purposes or partly charitable purposes and partly religious. Hence it can be stated that if a charitable trust is established only for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste, then the provisions of s. 11 would not be applicable

M/S. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION,MANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

11, section 12, section 13A and section 13B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and assessed or assessable by an Income-tax authority at serial numbers 21 to 34 specified in the notification of Government of India bearing number S.O. 2752 dated the 22nd October, 2014. Thus, from the 22nd October 2014, the learned CIT (Exemptions), Bangalore has been constituted

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

charitable and religious purposes in the subsequent year in which adjustment has been made having regard to the benevolent provisions contained in the section 11 of the Act and that such Chitradurga Zilla Reddy Jana Sangha (R), Chitradurga Page 12 of 13 adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1

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

1 of Section 12 A, Sub-section 2 of section 12 A extends benefit even when application for registration of Trust or Institution has been made on or after first day of June 2007. It would however be in relation to the income of the Trust or the Institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which

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

11 & 12 of IT Act 1961 do not apply to exclude either whole or any part of the income of such trust or institution due to operation of sub-section (1) of section 13 of IT Act 1961. 5. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(E) was erred in cancellation of registration of the trust

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

1)(c), I agree with the plea of appellant that the entire income cannot be denied the exemption u/s 11. The denial could only to the extent of income that was violative. Even the Circular of the CBDT in Circular No.387 dated 6.7.1984 stipulates the same proposition. 31. Therefore, the denial of exemption under section 11 of the entire income

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.

11 of the Act. Distinction was sought to be made between upliftment of the community and channeling the benefits of the Trust to a particular community. 5.3 On the issue of the refusal of registration by the ld. CIT’s order dt.3.1.2013 is concerned, we find it relevant that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dawood Bohara

M/S. NORTH WESTERN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,HUBLI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 &

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

C ’ BEFORE SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos.275 & 276/Bang/2017 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2012-13) M/s. North Western Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Central Office, Gokul Road, Hubbali. …. Appellant. Vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Hubbali. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT (D.R). Date

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

c) omitted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 9 (w.e.f. 1.4.2002).](2)Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application

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

trust deed are charitable in nature as contemplated u/s 2(15) of the IT Act, and the objects of developing the Muslim Community, which is a broad cross section of general public itself in an object of advancement of general public utility, which is charitable object alongwith the other objects No.5

M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION MEDICAL ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Income Tax Act, vide registration order No. Trust/12A/2/CIT(A)/84-85 dated 20.03.1985 running several education institutions and hospitals. The assessee Page 2 of 32 during the impugned assessment year 2011-12 had filed return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2011 vide acknowledgement number 17010016505 declaring a NIL income and claimed

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

11 of the Act. A religious trust could be 'public' or 'private'. Section 13(1)(a) bars exemption to any private religious trust, which does not enure for the benefit of the public. Section 80G(5)(iii) makes a distinction in cases of institutions or funds, which are for the benefit of any ITA Nos.1082, 1083/Bang/2022 Page

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

11 of the Act. A religious trust could be 'public' or 'private'. Section 13(1)(a) bars exemption to any private religious trust, which does not enure for the benefit of the public. Section 80G(5)(iii) makes a distinction in cases of institutions or funds, which are for the benefit of any ITA Nos.1082, 1083/Bang/2022 Page