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

4 of 20 payments was towards civil works, maintenance, and repairs etc. but there was no evidence available on record establishing that such expenses are directly linked with charitable activity of the assessee. 8.2 The provision of section 11(1)(a) allows a charitable trust

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

4 of 20 payments was towards civil works, maintenance, and repairs etc. but there was no evidence available on record establishing that such expenses are directly linked with charitable activity of the assessee. 8.2 The provision of section 11(1)(a) allows a charitable trust

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

Charitable Trust, am\nsatisfied that the assessee, being a trust referred to in section 11 of the Act has committed\nspecified violations as defined in clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to sub-section (4

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

Charitable Trust, am\nsatisfied that the assessee, being a trust referred to in section 11 of the Act has committed\nspecified violations as defined in clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to sub-section (4

DODDABALLAPUR PLANNING AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

charitable purposes. Section 12 is in the nature of an Explanation of section 11. Section 12A provides that provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall not apply in relation to income of any trust or institution unless certain conditions are satisfied, one of which is clause (a), the same is reproduced as under: "12A. Conditions as to registration of trusts

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

4) of the act, where the trust or an institution who have been granted registration under the provisions of section 12 (1) (b) or under the section 12A of the act and subsequently if it is found that the activities of the trust or institution are being carried out in a manner that the provisions of section 11

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

trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, or which is of the nature referred to in sub-clause (ire) of clause (4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11

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

trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes, or which is of the nature referred to in sub-clause (ire) of clause (4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11

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

4. Further, the ld. A.R. submitted that as per the Provisions of the Act, Sec. 11,12 and 13 are a separate Code of computation of income. The Assessee is entitled to the same and has claimed 100% Exemption u/sec 11 as per Sec. 12A(2). Assuming for a moment, but not admitting, that the Assessee is not eligible

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

section 12 AA (4) it has been provided or is\nseen to have explicitly provided to have retrospective\ncharacter or intent.\n(ii) In Global Health Research and Management Institute versus\nthe PCIT Jaipur in ITA No. 397/Jodh/2019 dated 25 January\n2023 wherein in paragraph No. 11 and 13 the identical view is\ntaken.\n(iii) Mahadevia Charitable Trust

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

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:

4 n. Creating consciousness on the importance of literacy and providing functional literacy to the people especially to the marginalized section of the society. o. Alternative technology to the urban, rural poor artisans and peasants to improve their skills and promote self help developments. 05. No doubt some of the objects are charitable in nature, whereas some others are religious

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.

trust deed are charitable in nature as contemplated under Section 2(15) of the Act and the objects of developing the Muslim community like object No.1, 2, 9, 11, 19, 20 & 21, which is a broad cross section of general public itself is an object of advancement of general public utility, which is a charitable object along with the other

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

charitable in nature and thus, there was no specified violation as per\nExplanation [e] to Section 12AB[4] of the Act under the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the appellant's case.\n12. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the\nappeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal

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

trust or institution on the value of assets which has already been allowed ITA No.884/B/16 7 as application of income u/s 11(1) by inserting sub- section (6) of Section 11, w.e.f 01.04.2015, such amendment cannot be construed as effective prospectively inasmuch as in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

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

section 11 of the Act. Under these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the orders of tax authorities. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.” ITA No.947 & 948/Bang/2017 Page 14 of 17 15. We notice that the Mumbai Bench of ITAT has drawn a distinction between the expression ‘income derived from property’ and ‘income of such

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

4(b) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950. The 3/4th of the income of the bequest was primarily earmarked for the benefit of near relations of the testator only, it cannot be considered as a public charitable trust. While the rest one-fourth was concluded to form the valid charitable trust. (Trustees of Gordhandas Govindram Family Trust