M/S. RAYA NAIK MEMORIAL GOWSHALA TRUST,KAJUBAG KARWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE

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

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

201 cows on the assessee’s website pertains only to the total capacity of the gaushala and not to the actual number of cows housed during the relevant period. It was contended that the said discrepancy was inadvertent and, in any case, does not affect the genuineness of the charitable activities carried out by the trust. 8.2 It was further

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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

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. 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

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. 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

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

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. 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

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. ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION,MANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

201 4 provided additional powers for\ncancellation under Section 12AA(4)(a),\nwhich provides\ncancellation due to the applicability of forfeiture of income under\nSection 13(1). It may be noted, under Section 13(1) various\nviolations pertaining to investment, benefit to interested person\netc are regulated.\n8.1.3 With effect from 1st September, 2019 again, additional\npowers have been provided

INDEPENDENT AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEDIA FOUNDATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

charitable and further there is no allegation that those objects are not falling within the purview of provisions of section 2 (15) of the Act. 25. Further coming to the various observation made by the learned CIT in his order, He referred to the various answers given by the assessee and relied upon them. Regarding the issue of payment

M/S. TEACHERS ACADEMY EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : N.A.

section 40A(3) does not apply to charitable trusts. (e) With regard to the allegation in the survey report that the applicant trust also failed to deduct TDS from the appropriate expenditure debited in the profit and loss account in the referred AYs, the assessee submitted that the TDS Failure is also due to ignorance as to the TDS provisions

DCIT, UDUPI vs. M/S MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION, MANIPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

201-02 and onwards for set off against the surplus of asst.year 2006-07, when there is no provision in the IT Act to allow carry forward of such deficit, and the number of years for which such carry forward of deficit for set off can be allowed. The ld.CIT(A) erred in not specifying the provisions

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMTIONS), CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALOE vs. M/S FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN SPORTING TALENT (FIST), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 4(3) of the Income Tax Act 1922 (as applicable at that time) which were applied or finally set apart for religious or charitable purposes outside taxable territories. In the present case, it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee association applied its income or receipts outside taxable territories because the issue before us only relates

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN SPORTING TALENT (IFST), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 4(3) of the Income Tax Act 1922 (as applicable at that time) which were applied or finally set apart for religious or charitable purposes outside taxable territories. In the present case, it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee association applied its income or receipts outside taxable territories because the issue before us only relates

FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN SPORTING TALENT (FIST),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 4(3) of the Income Tax Act 1922 (as applicable at that time) which were applied or finally set apart for religious or charitable purposes outside taxable territories. In the present case, it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee association applied its income or receipts outside taxable territories because the issue before us only relates

FOUNDATION FOR INDIAN SPORTING TALENT (FIST),BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BAGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 4(3) of the Income Tax Act 1922 (as applicable at that time) which were applied or finally set apart for religious or charitable purposes outside taxable territories. In the present case, it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee association applied its income or receipts outside taxable territories because the issue before us only relates

ABHERAJ BALDOTA FOUNDATION ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

201). Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that the AO was not justified in assessing the unutilized amount of accumulated funds in asst. year 2008-09. In the alternative, the ld ARsubmitted that the income so assessed forms part of current year’s income and hence the AO should have allowed deduction u/s 11(2) of the Act by admitting fresh

M/S URSULINE FRANCISCAN CONGREGATION ,MANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

201 and also the decision rendered by Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh & Telengana High Court in the case of Samaja Seva Nidhi Vs. ACIT (2015) 376 ITR 507. She submitted that the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh & Telengana High Court, in the above said case, has held that where the Charitable trust had accumulated certain amount and furnished information in that regard

VOKKALIGARA SANGHA ,CHIKBALLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, , BANGALORE

charitable trust, is registered under section 12A(1)(a) of the Act.\nThe assessee in the year under consideration has shown gross\nincome/receipt of Rs. 72,67,300/- and the same was claimed as\nexempted under section 11 of the Act in the following manner:\n(a) Expenses to maintain students hostel\n(b) Accumulation 15% as per section