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

13(1)(d) would fall in the tax-net and the other income of the charitable trust / institution would remain exempt under the provisions of section 11 of the Act. Board Circular: In the present context it is apposite to peruse paragraph 28 of Circular No.387 dt.&.7. 9

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

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

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.

trust deed are charitable in nature as contemplated under Section 2(15) of the Act and the objects of developing the Muslim community like object No.1, 2, 9, 11, 19, 20 & 21, which is a broad cross section of general public itself is an object of advancement of general public utility, which is a charitable object along with the other

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:

9 23. In our opinion, once the registration is granted to the assessee by the CIT, AO cannot go into probing the objects and the purposes of the trust or institution and that is within the exclusive domain and jurisdiction of the CIT. What AO can do that he can at the most investigate the matter within the four corners

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

charitable and religious are not exclusively meant for a particular religious community. The objects, as explained in the preceding paragraphs, do not channel the benefits to any community if not the Dawoodi Bohra Community and thus, would not fall under the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act.” 5.4. The general principles that can be culled out from

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

9 of 14 be charitable purpose. If the primary or predominant object of an institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary or incidental to the dominant purpose, would not prevent the institution from being a valid charitable trust. The Court then held that the Section requires it to be established that such

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

9 of 16 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 13 of 81 to arrangement of funds over the years for purchasing these land parcels in the name of M Shyamaraju or Mr. Umesh P. Raju. 3.11 While recording the sworn statement, Mr. P. Shyamaraju confirmed that the consider.. for four properties was Rs.78

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

Charitable Trust, of Income-tax, No.619/G, 2ndBlock,. /Bang/2018) Central Circle 36th Cross, -2(1) Rajajinagar, 2nd Block, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 010 13 CO No. 89 2009- “ “ /Bang/2018 10 (In ITA No.1143 /Bang/2018) 14 CO No. 90 2014- “ “ /Bang/2018 15 (In ITA No.1148 /Bang/2018) Appellant by : Shri Prashanth G.S, C.A Respondent by : Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR) Date of hearing

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

9 The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC may be set- aside and the order of the A.O. may be confirmed.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public charitable trust registered under the provisions of the Act and carrying on the activities of providing education to primary and secondary courses

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

9. The learned PCIT erred in holding that the income earned by the appellant was utilized for the benefit of Mr. Mohammed Farhad and thus not applied for the objects of the appellant thereby concluding that there was a specified violation as per Explanation [a] to Section 12AB of the Act, which finding of the learned PCIT is based

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

9 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. (iii) Thus, as could be seen from the above first and second proviso to section 12A [2] of the Act it is clear that no reopening under section 147 of the Act is permissible for any assessment year preceding the assessment years only for non-registration of Trust under section

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

9 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. (iii) Thus, as could be seen from the above first and second proviso to section 12A [2] of the Act it is clear that no reopening under section 147 of the Act is permissible for any assessment year preceding the assessment years only for non-registration of Trust under section

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

9 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. (iii) Thus, as could be seen from the above first and second proviso to section 12A [2] of the Act it is clear that no reopening under section 147 of the Act is permissible for any assessment year preceding the assessment years only for non-registration of Trust under section

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

9 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. (iii) Thus, as could be seen from the above first and second proviso to section 12A [2] of the Act it is clear that no reopening under section 147 of the Act is permissible for any assessment year preceding the assessment years only for non-registration of Trust under section