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.

18 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi27Bangalore18Mumbai18Jaipur10Ahmedabad3Indore2Nagpur2Chennai1Jodhpur1Chandigarh1Pune1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 1145Section 2(15)34Exemption17Disallowance12Addition to Income11Section 13(8)10Section 2508Section 143(3)7Section 234B

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

ITA 169/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Trust or\nCommission (by whatever name called) will require similar\nconsideration – i.e., whether it is at cost with a nominal mark-\nup or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the\nmischief of \"commercial activity”. However, in the case of\nsuch notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section\n10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

6
Section 139(1)6
Section 11(1)(d)5
Deduction4

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

ITA 1283/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2011-12
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Trust or\nCommission (by whatever name called) will require similar\nconsideration – i.e., whether it is at cost with a nominal mark-\nup or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the\nmischief of \"commercial activity”. However, in the case of\nsuch notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section\n10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD , BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 951/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 2(15)Section 43B

234D. 11. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing. the appellant prays that the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) 14. Bangalore be quashed or in the alternative, the relief as prayed for be kindly allowed. [he appellant prays accordingly.” Brief facts of the case

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 170/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly.” 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka Housing Board was established as per the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 by the Government of Karnataka as a successor of Mysore Housing Board which was constituted in the year 1956. Further, as per the details furnished the primary object of the Karnataka

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 171/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly.” 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka Housing Board was established as per the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 by the Government of Karnataka as a successor of Mysore Housing Board which was constituted in the year 1956. Further, as per the details furnished the primary object of the Karnataka

RAGIGUDDA SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAKTA MANDALI TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2. (EXEMPTION) , BANGALORE

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

ITA 1082/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250

Trust the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that from the receipts produced, it is evident that the Donors are aware of the specific purpose for which the donation is collected and denial of the deduction u/s 11(1)(d) on the pretext that the term “corpus” is missing

RAGIGUDDA SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAKTA MANDALI TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2. (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1083/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250

Trust the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that from the receipts produced, it is evident that the Donors are aware of the specific purpose for which the donation is collected and denial of the deduction u/s 11(1)(d) on the pretext that the term “corpus” is missing

DESHPANDE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HUBLI vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3099/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CA
Section 11Section 147Section 2(15)

Charitable activity' under section 2(15) of the Act; the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same. b. The LAO has erred in holding that the Appellant has not undertaken any activity in the area of formal education; the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same. c. The LAO has erred in holding without any basis

DESHPANDE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HUBLI vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3101/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CA
Section 11Section 147Section 2(15)

Charitable activity' under section 2(15) of the Act; the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same. b. The LAO has erred in holding that the Appellant has not undertaken any activity in the area of formal education; the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same. c. The LAO has erred in holding without any basis

DESHPANDE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HUBLI vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 3100/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CA
Section 11Section 147Section 2(15)

Charitable activity' under section 2(15) of the Act; the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same. b. The LAO has erred in holding that the Appellant has not undertaken any activity in the area of formal education; the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in sustaining the same. c. The LAO has erred in holding without any basis

KARNATAKA WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 283/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT-III(DR)
Section 11Section 2(15)

234D. 12. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the Assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). Before CIT(A), the Assessee contended that under clause 3 of Article 246 of the Constitution of India the State is empowered to make laws in respect of any matters enumerated in List II of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India [“herein after

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE - 1, BENGALURU vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1507/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

Sections 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 11. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 3. For AY 2013-14, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The learned C.I.T. (A) has erred in passing the order in the manner which

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1506/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

Sections 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 11. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 3. For AY 2013-14, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The learned C.I.T. (A) has erred in passing the order in the manner which

M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1264/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

Sections 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 11. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 3. For AY 2013-14, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The learned C.I.T. (A) has erred in passing the order in the manner which

M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1263/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

Sections 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 11. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 3. For AY 2013-14, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The learned C.I.T. (A) has erred in passing the order in the manner which

M/S. KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2547/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 13(1)(d)Section 2(15)Section 234B

Sections 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. 11. For these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” 3. For AY 2013-14, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The learned C.I.T. (A) has erred in passing the order in the manner which

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 820/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234DSection 250

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

M/S. KODAVA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,PONNAMPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 764/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykodava Education Society Acit (Exemptions), Circle-1 Po Box No. 11, Halligattu Unity Building Annexe Vs. Ponnampet 571216 5Th Floor, Mission Road Pan – Aaaak1322J Bengaluru 560027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishal Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2003-24/1061703575(1) Dated 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Impugned Order Of The Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Liable To Set Aside In So Far As The Same Is Incorrect, Irregular, Improper, Unlawful & Oppose To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2 That The Learned Appellate Commissioner Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Committed Certain Errors & Omissions In Filling Up The Return Of Income Which Ought To Have Been Substituted With The Correct Figures To Arrive At The Taxable Income, If Any & As Such The Impugned Order Is Liable To Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

234D even when the Appellant is not liable there for under the law.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee being a charitable trust providing technical education in the rural area of Kodagu district for all the students irrespective of their income, caste, colour, language or religion. The 3 Kodava Education Society assessee trust has also