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 was not registered, the AO concluded that the donation could not be considered an application of income under section 11 of the Act and added it back to the total income of the assessee. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the payments were not in the nature of donations but allowable expenses under section 11

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 was not registered, the AO concluded that the donation could not be considered an application of income under section 11 of the Act and added it back to the total income of the assessee. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee contended that the payments were not in the nature of donations but allowable expenses under section 11

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

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 trust / institution would remain exempt under the provisions of section 11 of the Act. Board Circular: In the present context it is apposite to peruse paragraph 28 of Circular No.387 dt.&.7

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 trust / institution would remain exempt under the provisions of section 11 of the Act. Board Circular: In the present context it is apposite to peruse paragraph 28 of Circular No.387 dt.&.7

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

11 of the Act has committed\nspecified violations as defined in clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to sub-section (4) of section\n12AB r.w.s 143(3) of the Act for the AY 2022-23.\n7.3 As per the provisions of section 143(3), the Assessing Officer is required to send a reference to\nthe Principal Commissioner

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

7 of 16\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\nPage 11 of 81\nParticulare\nRUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST\nDr. P Shyamaraju -Land Advance\nDi P. Shyarnoraju Land Advance-2\nDr.P. Shyama Raju Land Advance +3\nERM Consultanis\nKhazina Radcy-land\nLand Advance & ftrioja Raje\nLand Advance -Umesh & RapGY NO 27\nLand & land advance\nLand & Lang Advance Pruthvi SY N№ 352\nLine & Lant

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

11 and 12 of the said Act shall be available in respect of any income derived from property held under trust in any assessment proceeding for an earlier assessment year which is pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration, if the objects and activities of such trust or institution in the relevant earlier assessment year

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:

7 and 8 are very wide in terms, in fact, that apparently wide discretion of the Mullaji Saheb is bound down by the two factors, namely, that this is a wakf, a dedication by a Mussalman of property for purposes which, according to the notion of Mussalmans, are pious, religious or charitable, and, secondly, it must be used for Dawat

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

Charitable Institution or Religious Institution. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the approval by the PCIT under section 80G requires fulfilment of all the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5). These conditions are as under: (i) The income of the Trust is not liable

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

Charitable Institution or Religious Institution. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the approval by the PCIT under section 80G requires fulfilment of all the conditions laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of section 80G(5). These conditions are as under: (i) The income of the Trust is not liable

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

charitable/ religious 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

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

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

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 (1990) 52 Taxmann330,wherein the deduction of 25% u/s 11(1)(a) was allowed against the income assessed u/s 11(3)(b) of the Act for failure of the assessee to invest or deposit the accumulated amount in accordance with sec. 11(5) of the Act. The ld AR submitted that, by applying the analogy of Hon’ble Calcutta

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.5,6,7

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

Trust\n(1955) 27 ITR 279 (Born), The Trustees of the Tribune, In re\n(1939) 7 ITR 423 (PC) and para No. 19 Page No. 528\nVolume I of The Law and Practice of Income tax by Kanga,\nPalkhivala and Vyas was relied upon in support of the\nabove principle.\nDifference between ‘business activity' and ‘activity with\nbusiness principles

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

7 of 13 surplus of Rs.76,29,084/- was inadvertently claimed as exemption under “Amount deemed to have been applied to charitable purposes in India during the previous year as per clause (2) of explanation to section 11(1) of the Act”. The assessee by way of written submission is now claiming that this surplus