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

section 13(3) in support of which there are clear documentary evidences available in the seized material as also referred to in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the noting in the seized material and also the admission of Principal Person

AL-BADAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,KALABURAGI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the\nappeal of the assessee is dismissed

Charitable Trust (supra) and\ncontended that a retraction should be made within short span of time\nand duly supported by sworn affidavit, only then such retraction is a\nvalid retraction. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the\nrelevant observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court hereunder:-\n\n66\nIt must be held that statement recorded under section

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 purposes and not for purposes of profit and no part of the same will go directly or indirectly to any of the beneficiaries of the society or anybody specified in section 13[3] of the Income-tax Act, 1961; the approval granted shall be subject to the provision of [6] proviso to section 143[3]; [7] the approval shall

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI, BALLARI vs. MS AL BADAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, BALLARI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the\nappeal of the assessee is dismissed

Charitable Trust (supra) and\ncontended that a retraction should be made within short span of time\nand duly supported by sworn affidavit, only then such retraction is a\nvalid retraction. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the\nrelevant observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court hereunder:-\n\"It must be held that statement recorded under section

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

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

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

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

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 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

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SRI. K.R. KAVIRAJ, HOSPET

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section the income which is to be taken for purpose of accumulation is the income derived by the trust from property. If both the decisions are carefully read, it becomes evident that any expenditure which is in the shape of application of income is not to be taken into account. Having found that trust is entitled to exemption under

M/S. SRI. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

charitable trust and of\nsection 13(1)(c) of the Act.\n22.1 The learned DR pointed out that section 13(1)(c) of the Act\nspecifically denies the benefit of section 11 of the Act, if any income or\nproperty of the trust is used for the personal benefit of trustees or other\nspecified persons. Since

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE ACADEMY FOR MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for both Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are dismissed

Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. In support of its contention, reliance was placed on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Trustees of HEH Nizam’s Charitable Trust (1981) 131

SHRI. SHRIDEVI CHARITABLE TRUST ,TUMKUR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2023-24

Charitable Trust, Tumkur Page 6 of 50 diaries maintained by Smt. Ambika M H. In her statement recorded under Section 131

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

charitable in nature and thus, there was no specified violation as per\nExplanation [e] to Section 12AB[4] of the Act under the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the appellant's case.\n12. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the\nappeal, your appellant humbly prays that the appeal

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) Lucknow 2016 (4) TMI 1119 - ITAT Lucknow / [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 276 held that it is settled position of law that any evidence collected at the back of the assessee cannot be used adversely unless and until it is confronted to the assessee and the assessee is allowed to cross-examine the witness

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) Lucknow 2016 (4) TMI 1119 - ITAT Lucknow / [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 276 held that it is settled position of law that any evidence collected at the back of the assessee cannot be used adversely unless and until it is confronted to the assessee and the assessee is allowed to cross-examine the witness