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

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

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

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.11.2012, wherein the assessee’s income under the Page 2 of 42 normal provisions of the Act was determined at Rs.15,62,505/- and Book Profits under section 115JB of the Act were computed at Rs.2,90,91,196/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)-14, Bengaluru

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

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

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

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

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

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

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income

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

charitable or religious purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes. Section 2[24][iia] of the Act, however has to be read with section 12 of the Act. Further, section 11[1][d] also has to be taken into account in this regard to decide whether every donation received by a trust is income