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

1). ................................... (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 8 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made:] [Provided that

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

1). ................................... (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 8 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made:] [Provided that

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

1). ................................... (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 8 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made:] [Provided that

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

1). ................................... (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 8 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made:] [Provided that

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

1). ................................... (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 8 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made:] [Provided that

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

1). ................................... (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 8 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust. 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application is made:] [Provided that

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

section 11(1)(a) ITA No.971/B/15 3 there is no restriction that the entire income has to be applied in the same year only, which means that excess application can be set-off in the subsequent year out of receipt of income during the next year. As a corollary, therefore, it was claimed that the excess application of any year

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. HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY),BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

trust reposed in doctors. Therefore, it is a matter of great public importance and concern, when it is demonstrated that a doctor’s prescription can be manipulated, and driven by the motive to avail the freebies offered to them by pharmaceutical companies, ranging from gifts such as gold coins, fridges and LCD TVs to funding international trips for vacations

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

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 Tax (E)-I(1

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

1. The order of the LAO and LAA is bad in law. 2. The LAO and LAA erred in not permitting the set off of depreciation claimed on the assets put to use for achieving the objectives of the trust against the gross receipts as permitted under Section 11 of the Income

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of the AO declining to give the benefit of Section 11 of the Act to the Appellant. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the objects of the Trust would clearly show that the trust was mainly

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

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

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

197,700/– and so additions if any must be restricted to this figure only and there cannot be any extrapolation of any figures. The learned assessing officer relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 90 ITR 271 wherein income was ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 40 estimated based on the documents found during survey