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.

60 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 230clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka426Delhi187Mumbai110Bangalore60Hyderabad59Cochin49Jaipur41Chennai30Pune29Calcutta17Chandigarh16Allahabad16Lucknow13Ahmedabad13Kolkata11Surat10Agra8Indore6Telangana5Nagpur3Panaji2Rajasthan2Rajkot2Orissa2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Andhra Pradesh1Guwahati1Jabalpur1Jodhpur1Ranchi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 1182Section 12A54Exemption47Addition to Income40Section 2(15)37Section 13228Section 143(3)24Charitable Trust24Section 10

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

ITA 2109/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections of people without any\ndiscrimination of caste, creed race or religion.\n(c) To assist, promote, establish, run, takeover and or manage orphanage, rescue and/or\nhalf-way homes for destitute, aged and the inform and/or senior citizens without\ndiscrimination of caste, creed, race, religion, status or standing.\n(d) To give out grants, scholarships, stipends, rewards, awards, certificates, financial

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

20
Section 11(1)(a)19
Section 153C15
Deduction13

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

ITA 2106/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections of people without any\ndiscrimination of caste, creed race or religion.\n(c) To assist, promote, establish, run, takeover and or manage orphanage, rescue and/or\nhalf-way homes for destitute, aged and the inform and/or senior citizens without\ndiscrimination of caste, creed, race, religion, status or standing.\n(d) To give out grants, scholarships, stipends, rewards, awards, certificates, financial

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

ITA 2107/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

sections of people without any\ndiscrimination of caste, creed race or religion.\n(c) To assist, promote, establish, run, takeover and or manage orphanage, rescue and/or\nhalf-way homes for destitute, aged and the inform and/or senior citizens without\ndiscrimination of caste, creed, race, religion, status or standing.\n(d) To give out grants, scholarships, stipends, rewards, awards, certificates, financial

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

ITA 1061/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 7

charitable or religious trust or institution that has been registered u/s 12A), Form 10BB (Audit report under section 10(23C) of the Act) and the Form 3CD. The afore-mentioned facts were also brought under the order of the CIT(A). The assessee is claiming exemptions available to both 10(23C)(vi) and 12A registered entities and moreover the assessee

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

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

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

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2023[Nill]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2026

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

For Appellant: S/Shri. A. Sheshadri, CA and Bhardwaj Sheshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 133A

CHARITABLE TRUST [2019] 109 TAXMANN.COM 258 / 267 TAXMAN 16 ( BOM) was upheld. Thus, he held that whole the trust cannot be held to be non-genuine, and the registration cannot be cancelled. 30. Thus, he submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT is not sustainable cancelling the registration granted to the assessee trust under section

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. VISHWACHETAN FOUNDATION, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1040/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri H. N. Khincha, C.A
Section 11Section 13(1)(e)Section 13(2)(a)Section 28

charitable institution which are run on non-profit business and achieve the objective of the trust similar to or consistent with the assessee's trust for fulfilling the objectives of the assessee-trust and therefore no addition can be made in respect of the amount advanced to the Vidya Bharati Foundation without charging interest. 6. We have heard the learned

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Farhat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II
Section 268A

Charitable Trust, Bangalore in ITA No.676(B)/2014 and submitted that the Tribunal after considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of Lissie Medical Institutions (Supra) has decided this issue in favour of assessee. 11. We have heard the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. So far as the facts relating

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE ACADEMY FOR MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for both Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are dismissed

ITA 1075/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

Section 11 of the Act even though the amounts were disbursed by the Trust after the accounting year. Further, the amounts debited to the income and expenditure account but which were not actually disbursed were shown as liabilities in the balance sheet. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court which upholding the decision of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal

M/S ALLARD EDUCATION SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 355/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.355/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S. Allard Education Society, No.441, St. Thomas Town, Hennur Road, Bangalore-560 084 …. Appellant. Pan Aaata 3937E Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle 17(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri V. Srinivasan, C.A. Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 6.10.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Ltu, Bangalore Dt.29.10.2014 Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee Is A Public Religious Cum Public Charitable Institution Registered Under The Karnataka Societies Act, 1960 & Also Registered Under Section 12A Of The Income Tax Act Vide Order No.Pro 718/10A/Vol.A1/A-280 Dt.23.4.1975 As A Religious-Cum-Educational Institution. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2011-12 On 27.3.2012

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT (D.R.)
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

230 CTR 638 (SC) and CIT V A.L.N. Rao Charitable Trust reported in 216 ITR 697 (SC). The learned Authorised Representative also drew the attention of the Bench to the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jyothi Charitable Trust in ITA No.662/Bang/2015 dt.14.8.2015, wherein the Bangalore Bench took the view and held that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. VENKATESHA EDUCATION, BENGALURU

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 455/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132

section 13(1)(c) are applicable. The same principle was upheld in the following cases:- • DDIT (Exemptions) v Chaitanya Memorial Education Society, ITAT Hyderabad, 30 ITR (T)120 • Travancore Education Society Vs. CIT, 58 taxmann.com 40, ITAT, Cochin • Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust V CIT, Kozhikoke, 49 taxmann.com 426, ITAT Cochin • Further, the assessee trust is also not run according

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 50/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132

section 13(1)(c) are applicable. The same principle was upheld in the following cases:- • DDIT (Exemptions) v Chaitanya Memorial Education Society, ITAT Hyderabad, 30 ITR (T)120 • Travancore Education Society Vs. CIT, 58 taxmann.com 40, ITAT, Cochin • Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust V CIT, Kozhikoke, 49 taxmann.com 426, ITAT Cochin • Further, the assessee trust is also not run according

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 54/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132

section 13(1)(c) are applicable. The same principle was upheld in the following cases:- • DDIT (Exemptions) v Chaitanya Memorial Education Society, ITAT Hyderabad, 30 ITR (T)120 • Travancore Education Society Vs. CIT, 58 taxmann.com 40, ITAT, Cochin • Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust V CIT, Kozhikoke, 49 taxmann.com 426, ITAT Cochin • Further, the assessee trust is also not run according

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY , BANGALORE

In the result all the appeals of revenue, viz

ITA 55/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita Nos.50 To 56 & 455/Bang/2018 Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132

section 13(1)(c) are applicable. The same principle was upheld in the following cases:- • DDIT (Exemptions) v Chaitanya Memorial Education Society, ITAT Hyderabad, 30 ITR (T)120 • Travancore Education Society Vs. CIT, 58 taxmann.com 40, ITAT, Cochin • Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust V CIT, Kozhikoke, 49 taxmann.com 426, ITAT Cochin • Further, the assessee trust is also not run according