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

143(1) of the Act. As per provisions of the section 12A(2) read with second proviso, once approval granted u/s 12AA or section 12AB of the Act to a Charitable institution, the assessee is entitled for exemption from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which application was made. Further second proviso to section 12A(2

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

section 143(3) reference was sent by the AO as per letter\ndated 5.3.2024 for cancellation of registration as under:-\nPage 2 of 81\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\n06.\nREFERENCE FOR CANCELLATION OF APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 12A IN THE CASE OF M/S\nRUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

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

section 143(3) reference was sent by the AO as per letter\ndated 5.3.2024 for cancellation of registration as under:-\nPage 2 of 81\nITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024\n06.\nREFERENCE FOR CANCELLATION OF APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 12A IN THE CASE OF M/S\nRUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) and 142(1) were issued by the ld. Assessing Officer, during the\ncourse of assessment proceedings. The objects of the assessee as per assessee trust\ndeed reads as under:-\n“(i) To conduct study groups, lecture series, translate, publish, print and\ndistribute books, journals, periodicals, literature, etc for promoting and spread\nof Indian Culture and education and enlightenment

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

143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 4.7.2017 without affixing the digital signature or manual signature and seal on the notice and thus rendering the said notice non-est and consequent assessment invalid. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. not put any argument on this issue and more so, there

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

143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 4.7.2017 without affixing the digital signature or manual signature and seal on the notice and thus rendering the said notice non-est and consequent assessment invalid. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. not put any argument on this issue and more so, there

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

143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 4.7.2017 without affixing the digital signature or manual signature and seal on the notice and thus rendering the said notice non-est and consequent assessment invalid. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. not put any argument on this issue and more so, there

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

143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 4.7.2017 without affixing the digital signature or manual signature and seal on the notice and thus rendering the said notice non-est and consequent assessment invalid. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. not put any argument on this issue and more so, there

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

143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 4.7.2017 without affixing the digital signature or manual signature and seal on the notice and thus rendering the said notice non-est and consequent assessment invalid. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. not put any argument on this issue and more so, there

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

143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 4.7.2017 without affixing the digital signature or manual signature and seal on the notice and thus rendering the said notice non-est and consequent assessment invalid. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. not put any argument on this issue and more so, there

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

143(2) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] dated 4.7.2017 without affixing the digital signature or manual signature and seal on the notice and thus rendering the said notice non-est and consequent assessment invalid. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. not put any argument on this issue and more so, there

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

2(15) of the Act and assessee is not entitled for the benefit of section 11 of the Act for that part of income generated in the hands of assessee from running into microfinance business. Alternatively, one has to look into section 11(4A) of the Act. It provides that exemption shall not apply in relation to any income

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

143(3) reference was sent by the AO as per letter\ndated 5.3.2024 for cancellation of registration as under:-\nREFERENCE FOR CANCELLATION OF APPROVAL GRANTED U/S 12A IN THE CASE OF M/S\nRUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST FOR THE AY 2019-20\n1. Introduction\n1.1 The Assessee Trust, Rukmini Educational Charitable Society founded in 2003 is a charitable\ntrust engaged

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

2 of 81 30.9.2024 cancelling the registration granted to the assessee u/s 12 AA of the Income-Tax Act. 02. At the request of the assessee, we take the lead appeal for AY 2015-16 in ITA No. 2106/Bang/2024. 03. The brief facts of the case show that assessee, charitable Trust was established in 2003 and registration was granted

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

Charitable Trust. 5. For the year under appeal, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2017 reporting Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the act. The assessee computed its income based on the receipts and payments account and arrived at Nil income. 6. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2

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 institution is hit by the provisions of section 13. The AO will have to prove to the hilt, on the basis of positive evidence brought on record, that the trust has committed a violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Act. If the AO is not able to discharge the burden of proof, which lies

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 institution is hit by the provisions of section 13. The AO will have to prove to the hilt, on the basis of positive evidence brought on record, that the trust has committed a violation of the provisions of section 13 of the Act. If the AO is not able to discharge the burden of proof, which lies

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

143(3) of the Act.\n4. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld.CIT(A).\nThe\nassessee raised a ground on limitation since the order has been passed after\nthe time granted for passing such an order as per section 153 of the Act.\nThe assessee had also objected to the disallowance of exemption made