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 or religious institution, any income thereof for any period during the previous year - (i) any funds of the trust or institution are invested or deposited after the 28th day of February. 1983 otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11; or (ii) any funds of the trust

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 in nature and are being carried out its activities as per the object of the trust

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

trust cannot be\nwithdrawn retrospectively by invoking the provisions of section 12AB\nof the Act. He submits that though this proposition is applicable for\nthe first 3 years of the appeal and not for AY 2022-23 .\n27. For this proposition he referred to the provisions of section 12AB(4)\nwhich is enacted w.e.f. 1.4.2022. He therefore submitted that this

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

e) any activity being carried out by the trust or institution-\n(1) is not genuine; or\n(ii) is not being carried out in accordance with all or any of the conditions subject to which\nit was registered;\n6.2\nThe second proviso to section 143(3) is reproduced below\n[Provided further that where the Assessing Officer is satisfied

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

section 80G. S. 80G (5) provides that the trust should be established for a “charitable purpose”. Explanation 3 to s. 80G provides that “charitable purpose” does not include a purpose which is of a “religious nature”. S. 80G(5)(iii) also stipulates that the trust should not be expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community

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

section 80G. S. 80G (5) provides that the trust should be established for a “charitable purpose”. Explanation 3 to s. 80G provides that “charitable purpose” does not include a purpose which is of a “religious nature”. S. 80G(5)(iii) also stipulates that the trust should not be expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

13 of 27 On perusal of the above, it is important to note that the First and Second Proviso of section 143(3) of the Act shall not be applicable in cases where, a Trust is covered by the First Proviso to section 2(15): of the. Act. Therefore, it is important to view and analyse the provisions of section

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

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(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. 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:

e. To encourage and organize the study course, seminars, publish, journals, magazines libraries for expanding teaching on Hinduism and to invite leading religious heads and to honor them. ITA.818/Bang/2015 Page - 3 f. To maintain right of delegate ship in other philosophical organizations and societies. g. To look after the general administration of the temple. to perform the daily pooja

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.

13(1)(b) of the Act, is to the effect that a trust created or established for the benefit of a particular religions or caste would not be entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Distinction was sought to be made between upliftment of the community and channeling the benefits of the Trust to a particular community

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

Charitable Trust by any\nregistered transfer/sale deed. Mr. P Shyamaraju in his sworn statement has\nconfirmed that the properties have been purchased in his name and in name of his\nson (Mr. Umesh S. Raju) in their individual capacities, by utilizing the funds given by\nthe Trust. Mr. P. Shyamaraju has admitted that the titles of said properties and legal

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

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

13(1)(b) of the Act, is to the effect that a trust created or established for the benefit of a particular religions or caste would not be entitled to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Distinction was sought to be made between upliftment of the community and channeling the benefits of the Trust to a particular community

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

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

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

3 of 14 b. The funds of trust shall be invested in the modes specified under the provisions of section 13(1) (d) read with Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. c. No amendment to the objectives of the Trust shall be made which may prove to be repugnant

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

Trust,\nNo.619/G, 36th Cross, 2nd Block,\nRajajinagar,\nBangalore – 560 010.\nVs.\nThe Dy. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax,\nCentral Circle – 2(3),\nBangalore.\nPAN – AAGCS 0925 B\nAPPELLANT RESPONDENT\nAssessee by : Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra Kumar,\nIRS (Retired)\nRevenue by : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &\nShri Subramanian S, JCIT - (DRs)\nDate of hearing : 14.11.2025\nDate of Pronouncement

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

charitable trust is applied directly or indirectly for the benefit of the persons referred to in section 13(3), then he has ample power to deny exemption to that extent u/s.13 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act” (G). Further, the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Krupanidhi Educational Trust Vs. DIT(E