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.

39 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 156clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka426Delhi162Mumbai94Chennai85Hyderabad40Bangalore39Ahmedabad31Cochin18Calcutta16Chandigarh15Jaipur14Pune13Kolkata10Lucknow10Agra8Surat8Amritsar5Indore4SC4Kerala3Allahabad2Cuttack2Rajasthan2Rajkot2Telangana2Varanasi2Jabalpur1Dehradun1Nagpur1Patna1Andhra Pradesh1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 1175Section 2(15)61Section 12A54Exemption29Section 227Addition to Income25Section 1018Section 12A(2)18Disallowance9

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

charitable organizations. Due to absence of registration, tax liability gets attached even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfil the other substantive conditions. The power of condonation of delay is not available under the section. In order to provide relief to such Trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, it is proposed to amend Section

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

Deduction9
Section 143(2)8
Section 234B8

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

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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. 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

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE vs. M/S CENTRE FPR CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR PLATFORMS , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2

charitable organizations. Due to absence of registration, tax liability gets attached even though they may otherwise be eligible for exemption and fulfil the other Page 9 of 11 substantive conditions. The power of condonation of delay is not available under the section. In order to provide relief to such Trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, it is proposed

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

ITA 172/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate &
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 2Section 234

section 11 of the Act. The Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO(E) Vs. Kalanjiam Development Financial Services reported in 156 ITD 213 wherein it is held that, the micro financing activity is commercial activity and upheld the action of the Ld.AO in denying the exemption

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S PEOPLE'S EDUCATATION SOCIETY, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1074/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Lalit Kumari.T.A No.1074/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Circle -1, Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Peoples Education Society, 50 Feet Road, Hanumanthanagar, Bsk 1St Stage, Bengaluru 560 050 .. Respondent Pan : Aaatp3955H Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth, C, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Iii Heard On : 31.05.2017 Pronounced On : 09.06.2017 O R D E R Per Lalit Kumar:

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth, C, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 14Section 2(45)Section 21(1)

section 11 in the case of a charitable institution has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Bombay in the case of CIT v Institute of Banking 264 ITR 110. f) A similar view in the matter was taken by the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore, in the case of Karnataka Reddy Janasangha in ITA No. 220/Bang/201 1, Karnataka

AL- AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DY.D.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaal-Ameen Charitable Fund Trust, No.3, Miller Tank Road, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560052. … Appellant Pan: Aaata 2729E Vs. Deputy Director Of Income-Tax(Exemptions), Circle 17(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Gurumurthy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 1Section 10Section 11(1)(a)

Section 11(1)(a) has not been dealt with in the decision, without discussing the impact of the amendment to the term "voluntary contribution" on Depreciation issue, which is the issue under consideration. 10) The learned CIT(A) failed to observe that the decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court in (I) CIT Vs. Market Committee, Pipli

ITI EDUCATION COMMITTEE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

ITA 425/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, ACIT(DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

Charitable Trust Vs. DCIT (14-8-2015) 5.2 On the other hand, ld DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 5.3 We heard rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the grounds of appeal is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in denying the exemption under clause (vi) of section

SRI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 103/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita No.1811/Bang/2018 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R.(OSD)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

156 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.103/Bang/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1811/Bang/2018 are as under: 1. “The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Bangalore [for short 'the CIT(A)'], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed

SRI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1811/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita No.1811/Bang/2018 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R.(OSD)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

156 days in filing the appeal in ITA No.103/Bang/2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1811/Bang/2018 are as under: 1. “The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Bangalore [for short 'the CIT(A)'], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed

SASKEN FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTIONS, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 142Section 143Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 80G

charitable in character and as long as the purpose or purposes mentioned in Form No.by 10 are for achieving the objects of the Trust, merely because the details are not furnished, the assessee cannot be denied benefit of the exemption under section 11(2). [Para 171 Sasken Foundation, Bangalore Page 5 of 5 Thus, the Tribunal was right in allowing

GRAMA VIDYODAYA SANGHA (REGD),MYSURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 345/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Kotresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234A

charitable and religious purpose in India under clause (2) to explanation to section 11(1) of the Act shall be deemed to be income of the person. According to the Ld. CIT(A), assessee lost the opportunity to avail exemption provided in section 11 of the Act by not filing the return within the due date specified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(E), CIRCLE - 1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1969/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

Trusts are not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. (h) Without prejudice the authorities below ought to have granted exemption in respect of the other limbs of charity by applying the principles of apportionment and ought to have granted proportionate relief in respect of the other limbs of charity being relief to the poor

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1971/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

Trusts are not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. (h) Without prejudice the authorities below ought to have granted exemption in respect of the other limbs of charity by applying the principles of apportionment and ought to have granted proportionate relief in respect of the other limbs of charity being relief to the poor

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1970/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Suresh Battini, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

Trusts are not hit by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. (h) Without prejudice the authorities below ought to have granted exemption in respect of the other limbs of charity by applying the principles of apportionment and ought to have granted proportionate relief in respect of the other limbs of charity being relief to the poor