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 under Section 12A, as clarified in Explanation 2 to section 11(1) of the Act. Moreover, the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence proving that the amounts were spent for charitable purposes. The burden of proof lies with the assessee to demonstrate that the expenditure qualifies for exemption under section 11 of the Act. In the absence

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

5 are dismissed.”\n4\nITA Nos.1265 & 1266/Bang/2024\nA.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13\nKarnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust\n4.4. Still aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with Tribunal, and at the\noutset ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the provisions of Section\n11(1)(a) of the Act and submitted that the assessee is entitled for deduction

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

5 are dismissed.”\n4\nITA Nos.1265 & 1266/Bang/2024\nA.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13\nKarnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust\n4.4. Still aggrieved, the assessee filed second appeal with Tribunal, and at the\noutset ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the provisions of Section\n11(1)(a) of the Act and submitted that the assessee is entitled for deduction

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

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof for any period during the previous year - (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February. 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) 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

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof for any period during the previous year - (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February. 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11

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

5 of section 12AB of the Act is reproduced below\n[(4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an institution has been\ngranted under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) of\nsub-section (1) of section 12AA, as the case may be, and subsequently,-\n(a) the Principal

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

5. The ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) Panchkula dismiss the appeal of the assessee on the following grounds/Observations- (i) It is noted that the appellant is a Charitable Trust and has claimed exemption at Rs.5,80,44,590/- under section 11

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

5 of section 12AB of the Act is reproduced below\n[(4) Where registration or provisional registration of a trust or an institution has been q\nunder clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) of sub-secti\nof section 12AA, as the case may be, and subsequently, -\n(a) the Principal Commissioner

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

5. CBDT Circular No. 1/2015, dated 21.1.2015, reads as under:- "8.1 The provisions of section 12A of the Income-tax Act, before amendment by the Act, provided that a trust or an institution can claim exemption under sections 11 and 12 only after registration under section 12AA of the said Act has been granted. In case of trusts or Shri

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.

Section 12A(a) of the Act. (b) The surplus generated, if it is held for charitable purpose and applied for charitable purpose by the assessee then, the Assessee has to be considered as existing for a charitable purpose. There are enough safeguards provided in Sec.12 and 13 of the Act to ensure that personal benefits of the persons in control

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:

5)). Secondly, any income of a trust for charitable institution is created or established after the commencement of IT Act (sic). In each case the authority is required to find out whether the trust for charitable purposes is ITA.818/Bang/2015 Page - 21 established for the benefit of a particular religious community or caste. If it is so established, then the provisions

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 fails to comply with accumulation provisions u/s 11(2), then the entire income accumulated would be liable to assessment u/s 11(3), including 15% of income set apart or accumulated u/s 11(1)(a), and, therefore, rendered a perverse decision. ii) Whether, in the given facts and circumstances, the CIT(A) is correct in law in holding that

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

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.

charitable in nature, coming under the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act. The only objection of the ld. CIT for grant of Registration was that the objects of the Trust contained in Deed dt.4.6.2005 showed that the trust was set up for the benefit of a particular community. Whatever may be the correctness or otherwise of the said

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. Sub-clause of 11(2) permits the assessee to accumulate some amount up to a period not exceeding 10 years. Section 11(3) of the Act deals with the consequences if the amount accumulated is not utilised for the specified purposes. Section 11(3) is extracted here for immediate reference "Section 11(3): Any income referred

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

5-P(LXX-6) of 1968 dated 19/06/1968 issued by the\nCBDT, the income as disclosed in the accounts plus its other income\ncomputed will be the income of the trust for the purpose of section 11(1).\nTherefore, the Ld.AR submitted that the addition of service charges could\nnot be made based on the above said circular. Alternatively

SRI CHANNAMALLIKARJUNA TRUST COMMITTEE,KOPPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Cit (Exemption), Vs. Committee Gangavathi Bengaluru. Sri Mallikarjuna Mutta – Gangavathi, District Koppal – 583 227. Pan : Aajts 7938 J Appellant Respondent

5) is that the Institution should be established in India for Charitable purpose and institution should not be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste. Page 11 of 14 13. In sections 11, 12 & 13, a distinction has been drawn between 'charitable purpose' and 'religious purposes', but there is no definition of the term 'religious purpose