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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

2) or sub-section (3) or sub- section (3A) shall not apply in relation to any income of a trust or an institution, being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust ......." “ We have also examined the relevant proviso to section 10(23C) of the Act and the relevant

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

E). (ii) With effect from the Assessment Year 2009-10, the advancement of any object of general public utility other than relief of the poor, education and medical relief as defined in section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act shall not be a charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

22 of 23 be admitted and respected. Continuing further, we also observe that the activities of the trust are not confined to these activities alone, but is also undertaking purely charitable activities. As apparent from the Object Clause 2(c), (d), (f ), (i), (j) and (k ) of its Trust Deed, as well as the activities undertaken in pursuance

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

22 of 23 be admitted and respected. Continuing further, we also observe that the activities of the trust are not confined to these activities alone, but is also undertaking purely charitable activities. As apparent from the Object Clause 2(c), (d), (f ), (i), (j) and (k ) of its Trust Deed, as well as the activities undertaken in pursuance

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

sections joined together based on the concept o Self Help Groups (SHGs) both in rural and urban areas with active support of Non- Government Organisations (NGOs) based in India and abroad (b) To Provide consultancy and the required infrastructural and training facilities to the group members. (c) To receive money on deposit at interest and provide financial and other support

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

2 of the act for the particular assessment years. The ld. CIT(E) held that assessee for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 has filed its return of income and Form 10B reports late and therefore violated the provisions of section 12A of the Act. v. Regarding loan to Kuriakose Trust , assessee submitted that the transaction is through banking channel

SHROUTA VIJNAM GURUKULAM,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTIONS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee-trust are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : Na M/S. Shrouta Vijnan Gurukulam, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), 1 Nidagod, Targod B. O. Ward – 1, Arasapur, Mangaluru. Uttara Kannada – 561 402. Pan : Aants 0655 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prakash S Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(E)’S Order Dated 22.02.2024 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

2. That the learned CIT(E') has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by concluding that the Appellant is carrying on religious activities and it is a religious trust. 3. That the learned CIT(E) has failed to consider that Explanation 3 to Section 80G of the Act has to be read with Section

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

e) To arrange for direct financing of the group members by the Commercial Banks and other financing agencies and provide necessary guarantee to them. 3. To undertake and assist rural development and relief for poor by all conceivable means and especially in the areas relating to relief in times Of natural and other calamities, improvement of basic amenities like water

SRI. MARAMMA TEMPLE SEVA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No818/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : Na) Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust, No.11, Maramma Temple Street, 1St Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru 560 003 .. Appellant Pan : Aants4131R V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sudhakar Rao, Cit – Dr-I Heard On : 21.10.2015 Pronounced On : 30.10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

e. To encourage and organize the study course, seminars, publish, journals, magazines libraries for expanding teaching on Hinduism and to invite leading religious heads and to honor them. ITA.818/Bang/2015 Page - 3 f. To maintain right of delegate ship in other philosophical organizations and societies. g. To look after the general administration of the temple. to perform the daily pooja

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

Trust: 247 ITR 785 [TS-5005-SC-2001-O] Page 21 of 48 - UOI v. Onkar Kanwar : [TS-5021-SC-2002-O] - CIT v. A. J. Abraham Anthraper : [TS-5230-HC-2004(Kerala)-O] - Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT : [TS-6051-HC-2001(Bombay)-O] - CIT v. L.G Balakrishnan: [TS-5374-HC-2001(Madras)-O] - CIT v. Quantas Airlines

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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