BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

130 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 139(9)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka450Mumbai273Delhi244Chennai176Bangalore130Pune78Ahmedabad71Kolkata71Jaipur64Hyderabad61Chandigarh58Cochin45Indore28Amritsar24Lucknow22Allahabad21Calcutta17Rajkot13Cuttack12Surat11Nagpur9Telangana8Dehradun7Visakhapatnam5Jodhpur5Raipur5Agra4Rajasthan3Varanasi3Ranchi3Punjab & Haryana2SC2Andhra Pradesh1Guwahati1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 11134Section 12A74Exemption66Addition to Income54Section 143(1)50Section 153C44Section 143(3)43Section 1039Section 153A

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

section 139(4A) already exist in the Act. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that in the Assessment year under consideration, the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act had been extended for audit cases till 17.10.2016 and there is no dispute that the assessee

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 130 · Page 1 of 7

38
Disallowance32
Charitable Trust31
Section 13230
ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

9,30,990, he submitted that the allegation is that loan borrowed by Mrs. Johnson. He submits that in fact that money received from gold loan was introduced into the trust and same was deposited into bank account of the trust, considering as unsecured loan in the balance sheet. He referred to the balance sheet

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

ITA 1061/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 7

9 of 27 On a plain reading of the provisions above, it can be observed that the Assessee Trust being an entity registered u/s 10(23C)(vi) of the Act, the First Proviso to. section 143(3) of the Act is applicable in the given case. As per the First Proviso to section 1430) of the Act, in case

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

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

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

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

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

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

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

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

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

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

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

ITA 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

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

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

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

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2605/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust vs. CIT (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that sub section (1) & (4) of section 139 of the Act have to be read together and on such reading the inevitable conclusion is that the return made within the time specified in sub section (4) of the Act has to be considered

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2606/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust vs. CIT (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that sub section (1) & (4) of section 139 of the Act have to be read together and on such reading the inevitable conclusion is that the return made within the time specified in sub section (4) of the Act has to be considered

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2604/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust vs. CIT (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that sub section (1) & (4) of section 139 of the Act have to be read together and on such reading the inevitable conclusion is that the return made within the time specified in sub section (4) of the Act has to be considered

SHRI RAJESH AJJAVARA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 357/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 271Section 271F

Charitable and Chaleswar Temple Trust vs. CIT (supra), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that sub section (1) & (4) of section 139 of the Act have to be read together and on such reading the inevitable conclusion is that the return made within the time specified in sub section (4) of the Act has to be considered

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 2115/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Dinesh Kumar Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

charitable status. Therefore, AUDA is entitled to exemption under Sections 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the proviso to Section 2(15) does not apply to disqualify it from such exemption which is not in dispute in the present case. 9.9 In conclusion, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. The assessee is not entitled

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

ITA 1076/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

9 (Mum) has held that penalties levied for delayed statutory payments should not be treated as personal in nature but as incidental to business operations. Since these payments relate to employer obligations, they are incidental to the charitable objectives of the assessee. Gifts (Rs. 1,00,750.00) 14.6 The assessee contends that these were given as part of welfare activities

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

ITA 1075/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

9 (Mum) has held that penalties levied for delayed statutory payments should not be treated as personal in nature but as incidental to business operations. Since these payments relate to employer obligations, they are incidental to the charitable objectives of the assessee. Gifts (Rs. 1,00,750.00) 14.6 The assessee contends that these were given as part of welfare activities

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

ITA 1083/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250

Charitable Trust in ITA No.662/Bang/2015, Academy of Liberal Education in ITA No.687/Bang/2014 and DDIT(E) v. Karnataka Food Civil Supplies Ltd., ITA No.124/Bang/2014. Although these are cases where return of income is filed o within the due date but in the instant case although the return of income is filed belatedly, when the Courts have held that exemption

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

ITA 1082/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250

Charitable Trust in ITA No.662/Bang/2015, Academy of Liberal Education in ITA No.687/Bang/2014 and DDIT(E) v. Karnataka Food Civil Supplies Ltd., ITA No.124/Bang/2014. Although these are cases where return of income is filed o within the due date but in the instant case although the return of income is filed belatedly, when the Courts have held that exemption

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

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

139(4), provided there is not diversion for some other purposes of long term capital gains received on the transfer of original asset. Thus, as adjudicated and held by Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Shri Ramaiah Dorairaj(supra) which has been relied upon by the assesee himself, the issue is remitted to the file