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.

40 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 249(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka426Mumbai113Delhi94Chennai43Bangalore40Chandigarh37Cochin35Amritsar25Ahmedabad22Calcutta18Jaipur17Pune14Kolkata12Rajkot8Nagpur6Agra5Surat4Patna4Hyderabad4Indore4Visakhapatnam3Telangana3Jodhpur2Rajasthan2Lucknow2Andhra Pradesh1SC1Raipur1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 1159Section 12A35Addition to Income26Section 143(3)24Exemption20Section 14819Disallowance18Section 14716Charitable Trust

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

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2

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

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made

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

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made

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

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made

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

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made

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

4. 2011-2012 14,28,996 5. 2012-2013 17,56,560 6. 2013-2014 10,65,430 3.2 The assessee being aggrieved by the impugned orders of the A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, preferred appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) disposed of the appeals by confirming the additions made

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

4-2014 and as such, it is not applicable retrospectively. 14. For this, the Id. Counsel for the assessee has, again, cited the decision in the case of SNDP Yogam (supra). 15. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties with reference to the merits of the additional ground. The relevant portion of Section

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

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

charitable purpose, if it involves the carrying on of any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business, or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business, for a cess or fee or any other consideration, irrespective of the nature of use or application, or retention, of the income from such activity

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

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

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

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

249. However, on the date of search action on 6.8.2015, the search party found physical cash of Rs.2,67,28,900. This should be compared with the books of account on the day and the balance over and above the book balance should be brought to tax in the assessment year relevant to the financial year in which the search

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

249 and 224 of the paper- book respectively. He further submitted that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee company and had not been disputed by the revenue. Any incidental benefit that may arise to any other person or entity cannot be a bar for allowance of expenditure under section

CHILUME SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 248/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA
Section 11Section 139(1)

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied based on an incorrect computation of tax liability. The interest levy must be deleted. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the genuine o reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was caused due to unavoidable health conditions of the trustees and should have

CHILUME SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 249/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA
Section 11Section 139(1)

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied based on an incorrect computation of tax liability. The interest levy must be deleted. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the genuine o reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was caused due to unavoidable health conditions of the trustees and should have

CHILUME SOCIAL SERVICE SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. ITO(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1,, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 250/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, CA
Section 11Section 139(1)

Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was levied based on an incorrect computation of tax liability. The interest levy must be deleted. 5. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The CIT (A) failed to appreciate the genuine o reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was caused due to unavoidable health conditions of the trustees and should have

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

4. On the fact and circumstances of the case and under the provisions of the law, the Assessing Officer of CPC erred in denying the exemption u/s 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without intimation given to the Appellant Trust for such denial in writing or in electronic mode as mandated under the proviso to section 143(1). Hence

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(3) of the Act. The reasons for delay

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(3) of the Act. The reasons for delay