DODDABALLAPUR PLANNING AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

charitable purposes. Section 12 is in the nature of an Explanation of section 11. Section 12A provides that provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall not apply in relation to income of any trust or institution unless certain conditions are satisfied, one of which is clause (a), the same is reproduced as under: "12A. Conditions as to registration of trusts

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

Charitable Trust, Mansukhbhai\nK. Shah, with the direction to find valuable articles or things in Indian\nOverseas Bank at different branches. In the said warrant of\nauthorization also, the authorized Officer was directed to enter and\nsearch the building, etc. persons and to seize books of accounts,\ndocuments, money, bullion, jewellery, etc. as are provided under\nsection

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

1) , in such cases where otherwise the assessee has invested by way of A.Y. 2011-12 Shri. Gobindram Chandramani Vivek purchase of new residential house with in 2 years and that too on or before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(4) and the return of income also having being filed by the assessee within

RAGIGUDDA SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAKTA MANDALI TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2. (EXEMPTION) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee for both the years are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

charitable trust / institution is to be computed by applying commercial principle apart from sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act. He noted that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 is applicable only in respect of assessee's other than those and are covered under sections 11, 12 and 13 and 10(23)(c) of the Act because

RAGIGUDDA SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAKTA MANDALI TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2. (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee for both the years are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

charitable trust / institution is to be computed by applying commercial principle apart from sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act. He noted that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 is applicable only in respect of assessee's other than those and are covered under sections 11, 12 and 13 and 10(23)(c) of the Act because

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

charitable trust, filed its return of income claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. However, there was a delay in filing the audit report. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, citing a delay of 442 days in filing the appeal, attributing it to pursuing

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

139 of the Act, the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of applicability of proviso to section 12A(2) of the Act. 6.12 In our opinion, similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of Centre for Cellular & Molecular Platforms in ITA No.271/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2013-14 dated 28.8.2019, wherein held as under: Shri Hingulambika

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Trust reported in 303 ITR 360 wherein the Hon’ble Court held has that the balance in current account is also treated as investment as per section 11(5) of the Act to claim the deduction provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 19.1 The assessee in form 35 (statement of facts before the ld. CIT-A) also submitted

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Trust reported in 303 ITR 360 wherein the Hon’ble Court held has that the balance in current account is also treated as investment as per section 11(5) of the Act to claim the deduction provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 19.1 The assessee in form 35 (statement of facts before the ld. CIT-A) also submitted

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

charitable purpose. 3.12 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the inference that is evident from Circular No.11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 issued by CBDT as well as the aforesaid judgements is that third Proviso to Section 143(3) of the Act is applicable to institute which are covered under First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. First Proviso to Section

VOKKALIGARA SANGHA ,CHIKBALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, , BANGALORE

charitable trust, is registered under section 12A(1)(a) of the Act.\nThe assessee in the year under consideration has shown gross\nincome/receipt of Rs. 72,67,300/- and the same was claimed as\nexempted under section 11 of the Act in the following manner:\n(a) Expenses to maintain students hostel\n(b) Accumulation 15% as per section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

1) passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has not filed any cross objections (CO) against this appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - Dcit(E), Circle-1, Bengaluru Page 2 of 24 Dcit(E), Circle

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

139(1).\n3.4 On facts and circumstances of the case and law\napplicable, impugned addition / disallowance under\nsection 43B in respect of slum improvement cess is liable\nto be deleted.\n4. Addition of Rs. 4.17 crores in respect of sale of flats\n4.1 The learned AO/CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition\nof Rs. 4.17 crores in respect of sale

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted

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

section 11 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that the funds have been diverted for the benefit of the trustees, would show that the material cannot be transcended to qualify as incriminating material so as to form conclusive proof for making assessment under section 153A. It can, at the most, arouse a suspicion which cannot be substituted