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

h) thereof. Thus, the provisions of section 13(2) are northing but extension of the provisions of section 13(i)(c) 11;3(1)(d) of the Act. In the present context, the provisions of sections 13(1)(c), 13(l Xd) and 13(2) of the Act, are tote perused. Statutory Provision : sections 13

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

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 15 of 23 particular religious community or caste - say for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or for Brahmins

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

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 15 of 23 particular religious community or caste - say for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or for Brahmins

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

H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary to compare section 2(15) as it stood under

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

H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary to compare section 2(15) as it stood under

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

H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary to compare section 2(15) as it stood under

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

H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary to compare section 2(15) as it stood under

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

H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary to compare section 2(15) as it stood under

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

H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary to compare section 2(15) as it stood under

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

H). The Hon’ble Court made the following observations: 38. The question in this appeal which pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 is the effect of the amendment to section 2(15) introduced on 19.12.2008 which came into force with effect from the financial year 01.04.2009. 39. It is necessary to compare section 2(15) as it stood under

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

2. That, in the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld CIT(E) erred in cancellation of registration of the trust u/s 12AA(4) w.e.f 2015- 16 without bringing on record why and how the provision of section 12AA(4) can be invoked in order to cancel registration of the trust u/s 12A of IT Act 1961. 3. That

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

13 (Bangalore - Tribunal) has held that the work of lending money to poor women for income generating activities was charitable in nature as there was nothing on record to show that the interest charged by the assessee was exorbitant, which is missing in present case. The following extract from the case is crucial to understand the statutory and judicial interpretations

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

13 (Bangalore Tribunal) has held that the work of lending money to poor women for income generating activities was charitable in nature as there was nothing on record to show that the interest charged by the assessee was exorbitant, which is missing in present case. The following extract from the case is crucial to understand the statutory and judicial interpretations

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:

h. To conduct classes for Yoga, Music, Sanskrit, Drama and Vedas, etc., for the benefit of trust members, their families and the general public of the area. i. To establish and to run a baby Sitting, Nursery, Primary, High Schools, CBSC, ICSE schools, College, Technical institutions, Adult education, Commerce training college, Computer education, Self employment, Evening College, Vocational training center

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

13. He further submitted that these activities are consistently carried on by the assessee though SHG and the same has been accepted as “charitable purposes” for all prior assessment years. Copies of the assessment orders passed for the assessment years 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2016-17 placed at pages 54-69. The Ld.AR has placed before us the expensed

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

Trust: 247 ITR 785 [TS-5005-SC-2001-O] Page 21 of 48 - UOI v. Onkar Kanwar : [TS-5021-SC-2002-O] - CIT v. A. J. Abraham Anthraper : [TS-5230-HC-2004(Kerala)-O] - Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT : [TS-6051-HC-2001(Bombay)-O] - CIT v. L.G Balakrishnan: [TS-5374-HC-2001(Madras)-O] - CIT v. Quantas Airlines

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

Trust: 247 ITR 785 [TS-5005-SC- 2001-O] - UOI v. Onkar Kanwar : [TS-5021-SC-2002-O] - CIT v. A. J. Abraham Anthraper : [TS-5230-HC- 2004(Kerala)-O] - Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT : [TS-6051-HC- 2001(Bombay)-O] - CIT v. L.G Balakrishnan: [TS-5374-HC- 2001(Madras)-O] - CIT v. Quantas Airlines

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

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 particular religious community or caste - say for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or for Brahmins, etc. Donors to such trusts are debarred

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

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 particular religious community or caste - say for Hindus, Muslims, Christians or for Brahmins, etc. Donors to such trusts are debarred