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, will remain exempt. Further, as per the proviso to section 164(2), where the whole or any part of the relevant income is not exempt "Under section 11 or section 12, by virtue of the provisions of section 13

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

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

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

charitable trust fund\nfor the purchase of property in the name of trustees of huge amount of\napprox. Rs.115 crores by the then trustees for purchase of property in\ntheir own name by utilising the fund of the trust. During the search\nstatement of Mr. M. Vasu, who is the DGM (Finance) confirmed that\nthe property was purchased

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

Trust Committee Gangavathi Vs. CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections

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

Trust Committee Gangavathi Vs. CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections

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

charitable trust fund\nfor the purchase of property in the name of trustees of huge amount of\napprox. Rs.115 crores by the then trustees for purchase of property in\ntheir own name by utilising the fund of the trust. During the search\nstatement of Mr. M. Vasu, who is the DGM (Finance) confirmed that\nthe property was purchased

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

13(1)(b) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the Court held that the respondent-trust is a charitable and religious trust which does not benefit any specific religious community and therefore, it cannot be held that Section

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Trust Committee Gangavathi v CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Trust Committee Gangavathi v CIT (E) – ITA No 1829/Bang/2018 (order dated 4.5.2022) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections

SHROUTA VIJNAM GURUKULAM,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTIONS, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : Na M/S. Shrouta Vijnan Gurukulam, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), 1 Nidagod, Targod B. O. Ward – 1, Arasapur, Mangaluru. Uttara Kannada – 561 402. Pan : Aants 0655 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prakash S Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(E)’S Order Dated 22.02.2024 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

13. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v Sri Radha Raman Niwas Trust [2014] 42 taxmann.com 77 affirmed the findings of the Tribunal, which held that to carry sewa puja of Sri Giridhari Ji and carry Akhand Naam Sankirtan uninterruptedly in Aashram is one type of meditation and yoga and is a charitable activity under section

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. K J FOUNDATION, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

charitable purposes and subjected the entire income to tax. The said order was challenged before the CIT(A) on the ground that the application of provisions 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g)) of the Act to deny the deduction is not correct since there is no payment of any remuneration to the trustee and further in respect

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

13 of 42 for registration was given on 15.12.2014 i.e. in the financial year 2014- 15. On registration of the Trust, benefit under Section 11 and 12 would be available to the assessee from the assessment year following the financial year in which application was given and not any previous year. The benefit of registration could not have been extended

SHRI PURUSHOTTAMA NARASIMHA BHARATI SANATANA SABHA,UTTARA KANNADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2024-25

Trust Committee Gangavathi (supra) explained the difference between charitable purpose and religious purpose and held as under:- “13. In sections

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 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 for the\npurposes of section 11(1). In such circumstances, we do not think that this\naddition is to be sustained. Even otherwise, there is no loss to the revenue\nif the said service charges were included in the financial year in which the\nsale deed was executed by the assessee. We, therefore accepted the ground\nraised

MARGDARSHAN FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands\nallowed

charitable in nature.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "12A", "80G", "13(1)(a)", "13(1)(b)", "2(15)" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee trust

WELLNESS CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 13 of the Act, however, there is no finding of any benefit or diversion of the trust fund to specified persons. Also, there is no finding regarding the use of trust funds for non-charitable

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 for the\npurposes of section 11(1). In such circumstances, we do not think that this\naddition is to be sustained. Even otherwise, there is no loss to the revenue\nif the said service charges were included in the financial year in which the\nsale deed was executed by the assessee. We, therefore accepted the ground\nraised

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERSHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11 be deemed to be income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or ITA Nos.1492 & 1493/Bang/2010 & 675/Bang/2014 Page 10 of 13