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.

41 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 249clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka426Mumbai113Delhi99Chennai44Bangalore41Chandigarh38Cochin34Amritsar25Ahmedabad22Calcutta18Jaipur16Kolkata12Pune11Rajkot8Nagpur5Agra5Surat4Patna4Hyderabad4Indore4Visakhapatnam3Telangana3Jodhpur2Rajasthan2Lucknow2Andhra Pradesh1SC1Raipur1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 1159Section 12A35Addition to Income27Section 143(3)25Section 14820Exemption20Disallowance19Section 14717Charitable Trust

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Trust or Institution is not registered, no action u/s. 147 shall be taken for any assessment year preceding the said assessment year. Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga Page 33 of 42 17. The first issue before us is as to whether the two provisos to Section 12A(2) are applicable to all the appeals before us, respectively, as contended

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

14
Natural Justice12
Section 92C11
Condonation of Delay11

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1766/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded in the case of the appellant is framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into. The reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment iv. amount to reason to suspect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1764/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded in the case of the appellant is framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into. The reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment iv. amount to reason to suspect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1763/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded in the case of the appellant is framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into. The reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment iv. amount to reason to suspect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1765/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded in the case of the appellant is framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into. The reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment iv. amount to reason to suspect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1761/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded in the case of the appellant is framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into. The reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment iv. amount to reason to suspect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 1762/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2

Charitable Trust and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded in the case of the appellant is framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into. The reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment iv. amount to reason to suspect

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE vs. M/S CENTRE FPR CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR PLATFORMS , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2

Trust or Institution is not registered, no action u/s. 147 shall be taken for any assessment year preceding the said assessment year. 17. The first issue before us is as to whether the two provisos to Section 12A(2) are applicable to all the appeals before us, respectively, as contended by the Id. Counsel for the assessee, or whether, since

APMC TARIKERE,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR

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

ITA 1442/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri C.R. Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 10Section 10(1)Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

charitable activity carried out by it. Further, the assessee being a registered trust u/s 12A of the Act, the AO held that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act except claim u/s 10(1) & 10(23C) as per section 11(7) of the Act and accordingly concluded that exemption claimed by the assessee

M/S ST. MARTHA'S HOSPITAL,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)

charitable purposes in India, since the expenditure for running the educational activities, which are necessary for earning such income, would have to be factored in. The assessee’s claim for accumulation at 15% of the gross receipt was not accepted since the AO was of the view that this method is applicable only to a trust which is running purely

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1269/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Charitable Trust v. DCIT(E) in ITA No.226/Bang/2022 dated 10.6.2022. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) and CPC. He submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has not condoned the delay is correct view. The assessee should have filed appeal within due date as per section 249

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1270/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)

Charitable Trust v. DCIT(E) in ITA No.226/Bang/2022 dated 10.6.2022. 7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(Appeals) and CPC. He submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has not condoned the delay is correct view. The assessee should have filed appeal within due date as per section 249

SHREE NARADAMUNI SWAMY SEVA TRUST,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, HUBLI

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

ITA 1044/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 80G

charitable trust, registered u/s 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Registration No. CIT(E)/BLR/HPL419 dated 2408-2015 and got approval u/s 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2 The Assessee Trust for the assessment year 2020-21 filed the return of income on 25-02-2021 in ITR-7 by claiming exemption

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

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

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

ITA 827/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Nagraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80P

Charitable Trust v. DCIT, 280 ITR 357 (Madras), the Courts have consistently held that a liberal approach should be adopted in considering applications for condonation of delay when no mala fide or deliberate negligence is attributable to the assessee. 5. In the facts before us, we find that the delay is primarily attributable to lapses of the tax consultant, which

AVIDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 83/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 156

charitable purposes on revenue account and capital account respectively. Thereby the assessee claimed entire receipt as exemption under the provision of section 11 of the Act. 5. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 25-03-2019, wherein the claim of exemption under section 11 of the Act was disallowed for the reason that