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.

103 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 164clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka427Delhi196Mumbai133Bangalore103Chennai72Ahmedabad55Chandigarh53Jaipur41Pune36Cochin32Lucknow29Visakhapatnam17Calcutta16Kolkata10Indore7Agra5Cuttack4Nagpur4Surat4Amritsar4Telangana3Rajkot3Panaji3Allahabad3Hyderabad2Jabalpur2Jodhpur2Punjab & Haryana2Rajasthan2Ranchi1SC1Raipur1Patna1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 12A74Exemption74Section 1168Charitable Trust63Section 11(1)(a)53Depreciation45Carry Forward of Losses43Addition to Income36Section 143(3)

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

ITA 290/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

section 164(2) are also relevant, which are reproduced as follows: “164 Charge of tax where share of beneficiaries unknown. (2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

34
Set Off of Losses32
Deduction27
Section 2(15)20

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

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

ITA 291/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K Mishra, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)

section 164(2) are also relevant, which are reproduced as follows: “164 Charge of tax where share of beneficiaries unknown. (2) In the case of relevant income which is derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 884/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, 502, 2Nd Floor, 5Th ‘C’ Main, 5Th Cross, 2Nd Block, Hrbr Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aaatb6131D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Padmameenakshhi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(3)

Trust (60 taxrnamm.com 165). The relevant part of the order, is reproduced below: “14. We have considered hi submission. Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes

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

Trust reported in 303 ITR 360 wherein the Hon’ble Court held has that the balance in current account is also treated as investment as per section 11(5) of the Act to claim the deduction provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 19.1 The assessee in form 35 (statement of facts before the ld. CIT-A) also submitted

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

Trust reported in 303 ITR 360 wherein the Hon’ble Court held has that the balance in current account is also treated as investment as per section 11(5) of the Act to claim the deduction provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 19.1 The assessee in form 35 (statement of facts before the ld. CIT-A) also submitted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. T.A. PAI MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE,, MANGALURU

In the result, Revenue's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 2688/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2688/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. T. A. Pai Management Institute, Income-Tax (Exemptions), Post Box No.9, Circle–1, 80 Badagabettu, Manipal, Mangalore. Pan : Aaatt 2248 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri. M. Sridhar Kamath, Ca Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. M. Sridhar Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10Section 10(2)Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

Trust (60 taxmann.com 165). The relevant part of the order is reproduced below: “14. We have considered his submission. Section 11(1Xa) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1625/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

Trust reported in [2015] 60 taxmann.com 165 (Bangalore - Trib.). The relevant paragraph is reproduced below for ease of reference & convenience- “14. We have considered his submission. Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S ICICI EMERGING SECTOR FUND,, BANGALORE

In the result, all the thirteen appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 505/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri S.E.Dastur, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Neera Malhotra, CIT &
Section 199

164(1) of the Act would not be attracted in the present case. We also find that the hon'ble Madras High Court in the cases of CIT v. P. Sekar Trust [2010] 321 ITR 305 (Mad.) and CIT v. Manilal Bapalal Family Benefit Trust [2010] 321 ITR 322 (Mad) has taken a view that identity by reference

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1789/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 70

Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes as contemplated insection 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1786/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 70

Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes as contemplated insection 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1787/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 70

Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes as contemplated insection 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1785/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 70

Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes as contemplated insection 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1790/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 70

Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes as contemplated insection 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S.PANCHAJANYA VIDYA PEETA WELFARE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1788/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaand Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan D. George, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 70

Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable purposes as contemplated insection 11(1)(a) takes place in the year in which the income is adjusted to meet

DY.DIT, BANGALORE vs. MAHARANI LAKSHMI AMMANI COLLEGE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 391/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR) (ITAT)-2, BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Suresh, C.A
Section 11(1)(a)

164 ITR 439 (Raj) CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal 211 ITR 293 (Guj.). In CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 264 ITR 110 (Bom), it was held that in case of charitable trust whose income is exempt under s. 11, excess of expenditure in the earlier years can be adjusted against income of subsequent years

INCOME TAX OFFICER EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , MANGALORE vs. M/S SHIRURU WELFARE TRUST , UDUPI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

ITA 2165/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazthe Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Mangaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Shiruru Welfare Trust, Udupi. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.R Ramesh, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Shambu Sharma, C.A
Section 12ASection 143(3)

Trust (60 taxmann.com 165). The relevant part of the order is reproduced below: "14. We have considered his submission. Section I 1(l)a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which the income has arisen. The application for charitable

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S G M EDUCATION TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of revenue and C

ITA 890/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, D.R

Trust, while dealing with the issue of carry forward of excess expenditure over income has held that in para-14 as under; “14. We have considered his submission. Section 11(1)(a) does not contain any words of limitation to the effect that the income should have been applied for charitable or religious purpose only in the year in which

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)

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

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)

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply

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)

charitable purpose. 16. What survives to be determined is whether any of BIS's activities fall within the latter and larger category of "involved in the carrying on of any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business". The expressions "any activity," "rendering any service" and "in relation to any trade, commerce or business" imply