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

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. 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

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

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 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

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. 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

trusts, the activities must necessarily be for a "charitable purpose" within the meaning of section 2(15) for availing the exemption

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

trusts or societies with general public utility objectives. The Hon’ble Court then recorded its findings, regarding the true interpretation of “charitable objects” under Section 2(15

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

Trust is covered by the First Proviso to section 2(15): of the. Act. Therefore, it is important to view and analyse the provisions of section 2(15) of the Act, which deals with definition for 'Charitable

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

section 2(15) of the Act. (e) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to 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

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

15. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties with reference to the merits of the additional ground. The relevant portion of Section 12A of the Act is as follows:- "Section 12A - (1) Conditions as to registration of trusts, etc.- The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply in relation to the income

M/S. KARNATAKA STATE SEED & ORGANIC CERTIFICATION AGENCY,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

charitable activities and in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the I.T.Act. In taking the above view, the CIT(E) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s.Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency

M/S. KARNATAKA STATE SEED & ORGANIC CERTIFICATION AGENCY,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

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

charitable activities and in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, the assessee is not entitled to exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the I.T.Act. In taking the above view, the CIT(E) relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s.Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

15% of gross voluntary contribution received being income derived from property held under trust. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “2. The question that really requires consideration is whether, for the purposes of section11

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

15% of gross voluntary contribution received being income derived from property held under trust. Reference is drawn to the judgment and order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Programme for Community Organisation (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “2. The question that really requires consideration is whether, for the purposes of section11