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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

12A[1][b] and 12AB of the Act were under two separate orders / proceedings, which operated for different assessment years and therefore, separate proceedings ought to have been taken for each order of registration and concluded by a separate order and thus, the common order passed cancelling the registration u/s 12A/12AB of the Act from

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

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 u/s 12A(ab) of IT Act 1961, even though objects of the trust are charitable

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

ab), the person in receipt of the income has made an application in the prescribed form and manner to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, for registration of the trust or institution,— (i)where the trust or institution is registered under section 12A [as it stood immediately before its amendment by the Finance

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

12A [2] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], failed to appreciate that the order of re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-intio as the mandatory conditions to invoke the provision of section 147 did not exist

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

12A [2] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], failed to appreciate that the order of re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-intio as the mandatory conditions to invoke the provision of section 147 did not exist

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

12A [2] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], failed to appreciate that the order of re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-intio as the mandatory conditions to invoke the provision of section 147 did not exist

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

12A [2] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], failed to appreciate that the order of re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-intio as the mandatory conditions to invoke the provision of section 147 did not exist

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

12A [2] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], failed to appreciate that the order of re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-intio as the mandatory conditions to invoke the provision of section 147 did not exist

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

12A [2] of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals], failed to appreciate that the order of re-assessment passed under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and void-ab-intio as the mandatory conditions to invoke the provision of section 147 did not exist

SOCIETY OF PERPETUAL HELP HOME FOR THE AGED,SASTHAN POST UDUPI vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2025-26 Society Of Perpetual Help Home For The Aged, Vs. Cit(E), Pandeshwara Village, Bangalore. Sasthan Post, Udupi, Udupi – 576 226. Pan : Aabap 6Lo5 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Kashyap S. Vepari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Murali Mohan, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025

AB of the Act was rejected as the same was found to have been moved under wrong section. 9. In this regard, it was submitted by Ld. AR that inadvertently wrong section was mentioned, but at the same time no proper opportunity was given to the assessee before rejecting the application. Page 4 of 7 10. Be that

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

ab initio.\n\n8.5 The ld. AR concluded by praying that the Hon’ble Tribunal may\nkindly hold that the assessments made for A.Ys.2020-21 and 2021-22\nare invalid in law as they were completed beyond the period of limitation\nprescribed under section 153B of the Act, and accordingly, the same\nmay be annulled

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ab initio.\n8.5 The ld. AR concluded by praying that the Hon’ble Tribunal may\nkindly hold that the assessments made for A.Ys.2020-21 and 2021-22\nare invalid in law as they were completed beyond the period of limitation\nprescribed under section 153B of the Act, and accordingly, the same\nmay be annulled.\n9. On the contrary

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

12A and Exemption u/s. 11 of the Act continued. On the basis of search u/s. 132 on 6.8.2015 and on similar facts and same reasoning as in AY 2010-11, the AO determined the total income at Rs.121,63,33,681 on the following components :- i. Surplus set apart u/s. 11(1)(a) – Rs.19,21,19,133. ii. Surplus accumulated

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

12A and Exemption u/s. 11 of the Act continued. On the basis of search u/s. 132 on 6.8.2015 and on similar facts and same reasoning as in AY 2010-11, the AO determined the total income at Rs.121,63,33,681 on the following components :- i. Surplus set apart u/s. 11(1)(a) – Rs.19,21,19,133. ii. Surplus accumulated

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

12A and Exemption u/s. 11 of the Act continued. On the basis of search u/s. 132 on 6.8.2015 and on similar facts and same reasoning as in AY 2010-11, the AO determined the total income at Rs.121,63,33,681 on the following components :- i. Surplus set apart u/s. 11(1)(a) – Rs.19,21,19,133. ii. Surplus accumulated

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

12A and Exemption u/s. 11 of the Act continued. On the basis of search u/s. 132 on 6.8.2015 and on similar facts and same reasoning as in AY 2010-11, the AO determined the total income at Rs.121,63,33,681 on the following components :- i. Surplus set apart u/s. 11(1)(a) – Rs.19,21,19,133. ii. Surplus accumulated

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

12A and Exemption u/s. 11 of the Act continued. On the basis of search u/s. 132 on 6.8.2015 and on similar facts and same reasoning as in AY 2010-11, the AO determined the total income at Rs.121,63,33,681 on the following components :- i. Surplus set apart u/s. 11(1)(a) – Rs.19,21,19,133. ii. Surplus accumulated

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

12A and Exemption u/s. 11 of the Act continued. On the basis of search u/s. 132 on 6.8.2015 and on similar facts and same reasoning as in AY 2010-11, the AO determined the total income at Rs.121,63,33,681 on the following components :- i. Surplus set apart u/s. 11(1)(a) – Rs.19,21,19,133. ii. Surplus accumulated