DCIT, SHIMOGA vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 263 passed by the CIT, Davangere and the same is pending. 3. Depreciation is not allowable since the assessee is deriving income from other sources and not doing any business and also the assessee is a registered charitable trust

M/S SHREE DEVI EDUCATION TRUST,MANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshree Devi Education Trust, Maina Towers, Ballalbagh, Mangalore-575003. … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1),Bangalore. … Respondent

section 263 of the Act and the appellant was merely called upon the appear before the learned CIT and give details and thus, the very initiation of the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, is illegal and void ab- initio. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned C.I.T. failed to appreciate that there was no error much less

M/S. KARNATAKA STATE SEED & ORGANIC CERTIFICATION AGENCY,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

263 of the I.T.Act. However, the objections of the assessee were rejected and the CIT(E) passed the impugned orders for assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The CIT(E) held that the assessee is not carrying out any charitable activities and in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, the assessee is not entitled

M/S. KARNATAKA STATE SEED & ORGANIC CERTIFICATION AGENCY,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

263 of the I.T.Act. However, the objections of the assessee were rejected and the CIT(E) passed the impugned orders for assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The CIT(E) held that the assessee is not carrying out any charitable activities and in view of the proviso to section 2(15) of the I.T.Act, the assessee is not entitled

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2009-10

charitable organization [as per the order passed under section I2AA(3)], is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed. 12. The learned counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the order passed in the status of AOP (Trust) is bad in law. It was submitted by him that section 2(31) of the Act defines “person

M/S BHADRA EDUCATION TRUST,DAVANGERE vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

charitable activities in the field of education, filed its return for the assessment year 2010-2011 on 06/07/2010 declaring total income as NIL. The assessment was made under section 143(3) on 27/0/2013, by accepting the income as NIL as declared. ITA.607/Bang/2014 Page - 2 03. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Davangere, issued a notice u/s 263 dated 19/11/2013

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

section u/s 142A reference to DVO is valid 9.1 The directions of Hon'ble High Court were also considered in the present order u/s 143(3) rws 263 rws 260 (1A) by the AO in the present order under appeal. It is observed by the AO that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has upheld the validity of valuation report

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

263/- by erroneously stating that the Appellant has not demonstrated the description and quantum of expenditure incurred to keep the company alive while the Appellant had duly submitted such details (including audited financial statement) during the assessment and appellate proceedings; 5. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in holding that net interest income is chargeable under section

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

263/- by erroneously stating that the Appellant has not demonstrated the description and quantum of expenditure incurred to keep the company alive while the Appellant had duly submitted such details (including audited financial statement) during the assessment and appellate proceedings; 5. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in holding that net interest income is chargeable under section

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

263/- by erroneously stating that the Appellant has not demonstrated the description and quantum of expenditure incurred to keep the company alive while the Appellant had duly submitted such details (including audited financial statement) during the assessment and appellate proceedings; 5. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in holding that net interest income is chargeable under section

AGASTYA INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Agastya International Foundation, The Assistant Commissioner Of #101, 1St Floor, Varsav Plaza, Income Tax (Exemptions), 12 Jayamahal Main Road, Vs. Circle - 1, Bengaluru – 560 046. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaata 3882 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

charitable purposes in India, the mere .fact that the expenditure has been incurred out of India, does not disqualify the expenditure from exemption under s. 11(1)(a)." iii) In The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. DDIT (Delhi) ITA No. 1853/De1/201, Delhi Bench of ITAT held as under : “17. "It is quite clear from the above provisions that

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

Charitable Foundation [1987] 164 ITR 439 (Raj), Padanilam Welfare Commissioner Trust v DCIT Chennai ITA No 444/Mds/ 2010, as well as CIT v Institute of Banking Personnel [2003] 131 taxmann 386 (BOM). 15. The CIT (Appeals) however, dismissed the appeal on both the grounds vide his impugned order observing as follows:- "the adjustment has been made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(EXEMTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum

SITARAM JINDAL FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sitaram Jindal Foundation, The Principal 16Th Km Jni Complex, Commissioner Of Tumkur Road, Income-Tax (Osd) Jindal Nagar, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 073. Vs. Bengaluru. Pan: Aaats3638N Appellant Respondent : Shri S. Parthasarthi, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sreenivas T Bidari, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 31/03/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(E), Bangalore For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal.

charitable trust and is registered u/s. 12AA /80G of the Act. For the year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 28/10/2017 declaring Nil income after claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny by CASS and statutory notices were issued to assessee. In response to the notices, assessee filed requisite details

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1,BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. ABB INDIA FOUNDATION, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2018-19

Charitable Trust reported in [2019, 102 taxmann.com 122] which is distinguishable and not applicable to the Assessce's case; 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in allowing exemption u/s.11 to the assessee-trust by relying on the ratio adjudicated in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arhatic Yoga Ashram Management Trust vs. ITO (ITAT Chennai