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

Section 234 of the Act for the purpose of verification of the correctness of the charge of interest. ii. Without prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. submitted that in the event any divergent views are taken by different appellate authorities, High Courts, the interpretation favourable to the assessee should be adopted as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court

M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION MEDICAL ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) is not available for the revenue as the facts and circumstances of the present case are distinguishable from that case. 8. Undisputedly and admittedly, the main objective of the assessee association is to promote trade and industry in India that in the present era of economic globalization, sending delegation to foreign countries cannot

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Section 234 of the Act for the purpose of verification\nof the correctness of the charge of interest.\nii.\nWithout prejudice to the above, the ld. A.R. submitted that in\nthe event any divergent views are taken by different appellate\nauthorities, High Courts, the interpretation favourable to the\nassessee should be adopted as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court

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

section 2, clause (15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility, and not its accomplishment or carrying out, which must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit

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

section 2, clause (15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility, and not its accomplishment or carrying out, which must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit

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

section 2, clause (15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility, and not its accomplishment or carrying out, which must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit

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

section 2, clause (15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility, and not its accomplishment or carrying out, which must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit

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

section 2, clause (15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility, and not its accomplishment or carrying out, which must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit

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

section 2, clause (15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility, and not its accomplishment or carrying out, which must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit

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

section 2, clause (15). The true meaning of these last ten words is that when the purpose of a trust or institution is the advancement of an object of general public utility, it is that object of general public utility, and not its accomplishment or carrying out, which must not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit

M/S. AMARA JYOTHI EDUCATION TRUST,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable trust engaged in imparting education and has been duly recognized and granted registration under Section 12AA (a) of the Income - tax Act. The assessee Trust is registered under Section 12AA (a) of the Act dated 28.11.2007 vide No. DIT (E)/ BLR/ 12A/ A - 1103/ AABTA4395F/ E-1/ 1007-08. The assessee Trust is imparting education since its inception

M/S. AMARA JYOTHI EDUCATION TRUST,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable trust engaged in imparting education and has been duly recognized and granted registration under Section 12AA (a) of the Income - tax Act. The assessee Trust is registered under Section 12AA (a) of the Act dated 28.11.2007 vide No. DIT (E)/ BLR/ 12A/ A - 1103/ AABTA4395F/ E-1/ 1007-08. The assessee Trust is imparting education since its inception

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Trust)? 2. Whether CIT(A) is justified in holding that benefit u/s.11 has been denied for violation of section 13 above, when the fact remains that assessment order states that in addition to section 13 violations the assessee was seen to the operating its activities in ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Trust)? 2. Whether CIT(A) is justified in holding that benefit u/s.11 has been denied for violation of section 13 above, when the fact remains that assessment order states that in addition to section 13 violations the assessee was seen to the operating its activities in ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Trust)? 2. Whether CIT(A) is justified in holding that benefit u/s.11 has been denied for violation of section 13 above, when the fact remains that assessment order states that in addition to section 13 violations the assessee was seen to the operating its activities in ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Trust)? 2. Whether CIT(A) is justified in holding that benefit u/s.11 has been denied for violation of section 13 above, when the fact remains that assessment order states that in addition to section 13 violations the assessee was seen to the operating its activities in ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL), BENGALURU

In the result, revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Trust)? 2. Whether CIT(A) is justified in holding that benefit u/s.11 has been denied for violation of section 13 above, when the fact remains that assessment order states that in addition to section 13 violations the assessee was seen to the operating its activities in ITA Nos.499, 500, 501, 508 & 509/Bang/221 & CO Nos.12 to 16/Bang/2021 M/s. Gokula Education Foundation

APOLLO EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 234 A, 234 B and 234 C of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, ITA Nos.1212 to 1215/Bang/2024 Apollo Education Trust, Bangalore Page 3 of 10 quantum and method of calculation adopted by the learned assessing officer on which interest is levied are not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case