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

2) lists conditions which are deemed to be violation under sections 13(1)(c) or 13(1)(d). (i) Section 13(1)(c) - Benefit to interested persons Section 13 (1)(c) of the Act has carved out an exception from exemption in cases where a part. of income of a charitable or religious trust

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

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

13. We may also at this stage mention that the Kerala High Court in H.H. Marthanda Varma Elayaraja of Travancore Trust's case (supra ), the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohanlal Hargovinddas Public 11 ITA Nos.1265 & 1266 /Bang/2024 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Charitable Trust's case (supra), the Bombay High Court in Trustees of Bhat

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

2)(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 13(3) are not attracted in the instant case because during the F.Y.2016-17, no salary/allowance was paid by the trust to the person referred to in section 13(3). Though the assessee had not paid any salary

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

13. We may also at this stage mention that the Kerala High Court in H.H. Marthanda Varma Elayaraja of Travancore Trust's case (supra ), the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohanlal Hargovinddas Public 11 ITA Nos.1265 & 1266 /Bang/2024 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust Charitable Trust's case (supra), the Bombay High Court in Trustees of Bhat

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 and even if some of them are considered for the benefit of the community, they are for women and children of the community, which is excepted by explanation (2) to section 13(1)(b) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to the above, even assuming the trust

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. 3.11 It is submitted that phrase “trade, commerce or business” as used in the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act has to be read contextually keeping in mind the intent and purport of section 2 (15) of the IT Act. The object of introducing

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. 3.11 It is submitted that phrase “trade, commerce or business” as used in the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act has to be read contextually keeping in mind the intent and purport of section 2 (15) of the IT Act. The object of introducing

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. 3.11 It is submitted that phrase “trade, commerce or business” as used in the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act has to be read contextually keeping in mind the intent and purport of section 2 (15) of the IT Act. The object of introducing

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. 3.11 It is submitted that phrase “trade, commerce or business” as used in the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act has to be read contextually keeping in mind the intent and purport of section 2 (15) of the IT Act. The object of introducing

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. 3.11 It is submitted that phrase “trade, commerce or business” as used in the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act has to be read contextually keeping in mind the intent and purport of section 2 (15) of the IT Act. The object of introducing

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. 3.11 It is submitted that phrase “trade, commerce or business” as used in the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act has to be read contextually keeping in mind the intent and purport of section 2 (15) of the IT Act. The object of introducing

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

trust or institution undertaking such activity or activities, of that previous year. 3.11 It is submitted that phrase “trade, commerce or business” as used in the 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act has to be read contextually keeping in mind the intent and purport of section 2 (15) of the IT Act. The object of introducing

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 [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 2(15) of the I.T.Act. The High Court held that unless it was proved that

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 [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 2(15) of the I.T.Act. The High Court held that unless it was proved 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

charitable and activities are carried out as per objects of the trust, there cannot be any reason for the cancellation of the registration because section 13(1) of the Act applies to it. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of Krupanidhi Educational Trust v. DIT [2012] 27 taxmann.com 11 [Bang], Cancer Aid & Research Foundation

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

trust has its activities in the nature of ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’. xiii. The ld. A.R. therefore submitted that the proviso to section 2(15) finds no force under the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant portion of section 2(15) is extracted here under; Sec 2. (15) "charitable purpose" includes relief

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

2(15) of the Act and assessee is not entitled for the benefit of section 11 of the Act for that part of income generated in the hands of assessee from running into microfinance business. Alternatively, one has to look into section 11(4A) of the Act. It provides that exemption shall not apply in relation to any income

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:

2(15) of the Act making the inclusive definition and trying to make the charitable purpose more elaborate but there is no definition of the "religious purpose" under the Act. No doubt the law recognises no purpose as charitable unless it is of the public character. In short, it should be for the benefit of the community or the section