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 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

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

15,85,90,000/- 63,14,90,000/-\nSub-Total\n115,40,37,713/- 30,01,23,000/- 145,41,60,713/-\nTotal funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\n145,41,60,713/-\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed explanation to counter the above\nallegation. The Assessee Trust (RECT) vide its written submissions

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

trust has its activities in the nature of ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’. xiii. The ld. A.R. therefore submitted that the proviso to section 2(15) finds no force under the facts and circumstances of the case. The relevant portion of section 2(15) is extracted here under; Sec 2. (15) "charitable

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

Trust are covered within the meaning of ITA Nos.1082, 1083/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 23 definition of ‘Charitable purpose’ under section 2(15

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

Trust are covered within the meaning of ITA Nos.1082, 1083/Bang/2022 Page 4 of 23 definition of ‘Charitable purpose’ under section 2(15

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

15,85,90,000/- 63,14,90,000/- Sub-Total\n115,40,37,713/- 30,01,23,000/- 145,41,60,713/- Total funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\n145,41,60,713/- trustees (Amount in Rs.)\n6.1.1 The assessee trust has furnished a detailed explanation to counter the above\nallegation. The Assessee Trust (RECT) vide its written submissions

SRI. MARAMMA TEMPLE SEVA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No818/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : Na) Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust, No.11, Maramma Temple Street, 1St Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru 560 003 .. Appellant Pan : Aants4131R V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sudhakar Rao, Cit – Dr-I Heard On : 21.10.2015 Pronounced On : 30.10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

15. Thereafter, the Court held that for satisfying the test for charitable purpose, there must always be some element of public benefit. 16. Hence the words "trust for charitable purpose" would include even trust for advancement of religion. At this stage, we would note that the definition of charitable purpose under the IT Act goes much further than the definition

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

trust has its activities in the nature of\n‘advancement of any other object of general public utility'.\nxiii.\nThe ld. A.R. therefore submitted that the proviso to section\n2(15) finds no force under the facts and circumstances of the case.\nThe relevant portion of section 2(15) is extracted here under;\nSec 2.\n(15) \"charitable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 2(15) of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to (g) have taken into account the speech of the Finance Minister which indicate the object and drift of the amendment in as much as that genuine Charitable Trusts

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS RANGE , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 2(15) of the Act. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to (g) have taken into account the speech of the Finance Minister which indicate the object and drift of the amendment in as much as that genuine Charitable Trusts

M/S RABIYA BASARI BRAHAMATH-ULLAH ALLAYHA CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

trust deed are charitable in nature as contemplated u/s 2(15) of the IT Act, and the objects of developing the Muslim Community, which is a broad cross section

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

charitable activity through advancement of\nan object of general public utility and therefore, has\nconcluded that the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is\nnot applicable to the case of the assessee and has further\nheld that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section\n11 of the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing\nofficer

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 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

charitable activity through advancement of\nan object of general public utility and therefore, has\nconcluded that the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is\nnot applicable to the case of the assessee and has further\nheld that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section\n11 of the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing\nofficer

SADIYA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. Nos.422 & 1632/Bang/2013 M/S. Sadiya Educational & Charitable Trust, Mattadgadde Road, Sadiya Nagar, Shiralkoppa-577 428 …. Appellant.

trust deed are charitable in nature as contemplated under Section 2(15) of the Act and the objects of developing