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 Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

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 Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

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 Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

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 Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

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 Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

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 Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

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

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

Charitable Trust reported in (Del-HC) : (2011) 197 TAXMAN 170 has held as under- “6. We find from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Gujarat High Court. We have gone through

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

charitable purpose. 3.12 The ld. CIT(A) observed that the inference that is evident from Circular No.11/2008 dated 19.12.2008 issued by CBDT as well as the aforesaid judgements is that third Proviso to Section 143(3) of the Act is applicable to institute which are covered under First Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act. First Proviso to Section

M/S SEVASADAN ORPHANAGE AND TRAINING INSTITUTE,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S Sevasadan Orphanage & Training Institute, #347, Sarjapur Road, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Circle – 17(2), Bangalore. . Respondent

197 Taxman 170 (Delhi) • CIT Vs. Maharana of Mewar Charitable Foundation (1987) 164 ITR 439 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 264 ITR 110 (Bom.) • Govindu Naicker Estate Vs. ADIT (2001) 248 ITR 368 (Mad) • Dawath Institute of DB Community Vs. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 359 (Mum. ITAT) • CIT Vs. Shri Plot Swetambar Murti Pujak Jain Mandal

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

trust and that assessee was not protected by provision stated in section 11(4A) and the Assessing Officer had rightly withdrawn exemption granted to assessee under section 11. In the case of Janalakshmi Social Services v. Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Bangalore, [2009] 33 SOT 197 (Bangalore) it was held that where Assessee was availing of loan facility from banks/financial

M/S KUCHALAMBAL CHARITIES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, the assessee’s primary activity falls within the advancement of “any other object of general public utility” u/s 2(15) of the Act and since 4 M/s.Kuchalambal Charities. the receipts from such activities exceed the prescribed limit, the A.O. concluded that the assessee is not entitled to exemption

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavanita No.386 /Bang/2016 (Asst. Year 2006-07)

Charitable Trust, 197 Taxman 170 (Del.) Trustees of Balkanji Bari (1979) 10 CTR (Trib.) 22 CIT Vs. Sacred Heart Church 278 ITR 180 (Guj) CIT Vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection 264 ITR 110 (Bom) Gem & Jewellery Export Promotion Council Vs. ITO (68 ITD 95) IT Appellate Tribunal Mumbai ITA No.386/B/16 4 Dy. Director of Income

M/S BANGALORE BAPTIST HOSPITAL SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. ASST.D.IT.., BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P. Boaz

197 Taxman 170); • Hon'ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust V ACIT (19 ITR (Trib) 828) and Dy. DIT V. Cutchi Memon Union (38 Taxmann.com 276).” 4. Grounds No.1 and 2(a) and (b) – Depreciation 4.1 In the course of assessment proceedings, for both Assessment Years 2009- 10 and 2010-11, the Assessing Officer noticed

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2009-10

charitable organization [as per the order passed under section I2AA(3)], is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed. 12. The learned counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the order passed in the status of AOP (Trust) is bad in law. It was submitted by him that section 2(31) of the Act defines “person

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) Lucknow 2016 (4) TMI 1119 - ITAT Lucknow / [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 276 wherein it was held that even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statement recorded u/s.132(4) and wanted to cross-examine, the adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee and held that testimony of witnesses

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

Charitable Trust v. CIT (Exemptions) Lucknow 2016 (4) TMI 1119 - ITAT Lucknow / [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 276 wherein it was held that even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statement recorded u/s.132(4) and wanted to cross-examine, the adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee and held that testimony of witnesses

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

charitable trust under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It is engaged in running educational institutions at its campus in Raichur, Karnataka. It is also registered under section 12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 4. The appellant trust has been assessed to tax since 1992. For the year under reference, i.e., AY 2015-16, the appellant trust

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

charitable activities by running, schools, engineering colleges and medical colleges. The assessee has been regularly filing the return and for various years the exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. 2.1 A search was carried out in the premises of the assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 6.8.2015. Various documents were seized. Notice u/s 153A

PRAMOD SUBBIAHNAPALYA VENKATPATHI,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

Charitable Trust. Simultaneously, search was also conducted in the residential premises of the assessee as well as Shri Rajiv Gowda and incriminating evidences were found and seized. The materials seized were related to the assessee and therefore the AO of the assessee after satisfying himself that the documents are related to the assessee, had issued notice u/s. 153C