BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

16 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 221clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka423Delhi165Mumbai34Ahmedabad34Jaipur25Lucknow21Chennai20Calcutta16Bangalore16Chandigarh14Rajkot10Hyderabad8Kolkata8Amritsar5Varanasi4Indore4Pune3Cuttack3Telangana3Rajasthan2Visakhapatnam1Andhra Pradesh1Jodhpur1Kerala1Raipur1SC1Surat1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 80G40Section 12A33Section 1115Exemption15Charitable Trust10Section 1479Section 1439Addition to Income9Section 11(5)8

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

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

ITA 1083/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

221 (JP) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Upper Ganges and held that organising ‘Bhagavat Katha’ is a religious activity and therefore Trust would not be granted the approval under section 80G. In the present case as explained above, the Supreme Court decision in Upper Ganges is not applicable and also the assessee-Trust does not have

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

Section 1328
Section 133A6
Survey u/s 133A4

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

ITA 1082/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023

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

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

221 (JP) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Upper Ganges and held that organising ‘Bhagavat Katha’ is a religious activity and therefore Trust would not be granted the approval under section 80G. In the present case as explained above, the Supreme Court decision in Upper Ganges is not applicable and also the assessee-Trust does not have

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

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

ITA 694/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2024

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’).

For Appellant: Shri Prakash S Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

221 (JP) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Upper Ganges and held that organising ‘Bhagavat Katha’ is a religious activity and therefore Trust would not be granted the approval under section 80G. In the present case as explained above, the Supreme Court decision in Upper Ganges is not applicable and also the assessee-Trust does not have

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1084/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2023

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

For Appellant: Sri.B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

221 (JP) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Upper Ganges and held that organising ‘Bhagavat Katha’ is a religious activity and therefore Trust would not be granted the approval under section 80G. In the present case as explained above, the Supreme Court decision in Upper Ganges is not applicable and also the assessee-Trust does not have

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1085/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2023

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

For Appellant: Sri.B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

221 (JP) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Upper Ganges and held that organising ‘Bhagavat Katha’ is a religious activity and therefore Trust would not be granted the approval under section 80G. In the present case as explained above, the Supreme Court decision in Upper Ganges is not applicable and also the assessee-Trust does not have

RAMACHAND MOTICHAND SHAH EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL TRUST,,BIJAPUR vs. CIT, BELGAUM

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

ITA 924/BANG/2014[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazramachand Motichand Shah Educational & Cultural Trust, Sunita Nivas, Bijapur Road, Indi Bijapur-586 209. . Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Belgaum. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri Saravanan, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-10-2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 80G

221 and submitted that as per the amended provision of sec. 80G when the actual expenditure incurred for religious purpose is not more than 5% of the total income then the registration of the trust u/s 80G cannot be refused on that ground. The learned AR has submitted that the decision relied upon by the CIT rendered prior

SRI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 103/BANG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita No.1811/Bang/2018 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R.(OSD)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

charitable objects of the appellant trust on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that depreciation is allowable on the assets, even though the cost of the assets has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 or section 10(23C) of the Act and is covered by the decision

SRI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1811/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita No.1811/Bang/2018 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2012-13 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R.(OSD)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 234BSection 250

charitable objects of the appellant trust on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned assessing officer failed to appreciate that depreciation is allowable on the assets, even though the cost of the assets has been fully allowed as application of income under section 11 or section 10(23C) of the Act and is covered by the decision

SAI SATHYA SAI CENTRAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1129/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 70

charitable trust registered u/s 12A of the Act. The assessee also has got approval u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring Nil total income after claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 49/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Kaul, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devarathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

Charitable Foundation [1987] 164 ITR 439 (Raj), Padanilam Welfare Commissioner Trust v DCIT Chennai ITA No 444/Mds/ 2010, as well as CIT v Institute of Banking Personnel [2003] 131 taxmann 386 (BOM). 15. The CIT (Appeals) however, dismissed the appeal on both the grounds vide his impugned order observing as follows:- "the adjustment has been made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRINIVASA TRUST , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1473/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

charitable Trust, recognized and granted registration u/s 12A and 80G of Income-tax Act and is imparting education. The assessee had filed its original return ITA No.1469, 1473 & 1475/Bang/2018 M/s. Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore Page 2 of 11 of income, for the A.Y. 2006-07, on 31/10/2006 declaring NIL income. The said return of income filed by the assessee Trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRINIVASA TRUST , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1475/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

charitable Trust, recognized and granted registration u/s 12A and 80G of Income-tax Act and is imparting education. The assessee had filed its original return ITA No.1469, 1473 & 1475/Bang/2018 M/s. Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore Page 2 of 11 of income, for the A.Y. 2006-07, on 31/10/2006 declaring NIL income. The said return of income filed by the assessee Trust

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRINIVASA TRUST , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1469/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Chandrashekar, A.R
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 147Section 148

charitable Trust, recognized and granted registration u/s 12A and 80G of Income-tax Act and is imparting education. The assessee had filed its original return ITA No.1469, 1473 & 1475/Bang/2018 M/s. Srinivasa Trust, Bangalore Page 2 of 11 of income, for the A.Y. 2006-07, on 31/10/2006 declaring NIL income. The said return of income filed by the assessee 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

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the IT Act on this count. 220. Further, the AO taken the support of assessee letter dated 09.12.2017 placed at PB 2704 to 2706 wherein assessee stated that a sum of Rs.14,611.94 lakhs has been spent for object of the trust. It is also stated that Shri G H Nagraj, Secretary

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. COSMOPOLIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 575/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan UA, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11

charitable object in the following manner: - Donation Rs. 17,10,00,000/- - Revenue Expenses Rs. 3,44,44,374/- - Capital Expenditure (building etc) Rs. 37,93,21,221/- 10. However, the AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. The AO held that the assessee failed to establish that the amount of corpus receipt declared in the returnof income

SHREE GOVERDHAN NATHJI HAVELI TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-WARD-3 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1088/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shree Goverdhan The Income Tax Nathji Haveli Trust, Officer, No. 15, Nehrunagar, Exemptions, Seshadripuram, Ward – 3, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacts7617M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate
Section 11

charitable activity. Hence, there is excess of expenditure over income hence the question of taxing the same does not arise. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 12. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant