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.

84 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 27(2)(j)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka470Delhi279Mumbai180Chennai113Bangalore84Kolkata45Jaipur43Hyderabad39Chandigarh34Ahmedabad31Lucknow24Cochin22Cuttack20Allahabad19Calcutta19Amritsar19Nagpur17Telangana16Agra12Pune11SC11Indore8Rajkot6Kerala5Raipur5Varanasi4Patna4Punjab & Haryana3Rajasthan3Jodhpur2Andhra Pradesh2Surat1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 11103Section 2(15)95Section 12A85Addition to Income61Exemption55Section 80G33Section 143(3)32Section 153A30Section 13229

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

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

J. stated that the recourse to object and policy of the Act or consideration of the mischief and defect which the Act purports to remedy is only permissible when the language is capable of two constructions. But it has already been seen that for deciding whether the language used by the Legislature is plain or ambiguous

Showing 1–20 of 84 · Page 1 of 5

Section 153C26
Disallowance25
Charitable Trust20

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

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

J. stated that the recourse to object and policy of the Act or consideration of the mischief and defect which the Act purports to remedy is only permissible when the language is capable of two constructions. But it has already been seen that for deciding whether the language used by the Legislature is plain or ambiguous

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

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

J. stated that the recourse to object and policy of the Act or consideration of the mischief and defect which the Act purports to remedy is only permissible when the language is capable of two constructions. But it has already been seen that for deciding whether the language used by the Legislature is plain or ambiguous

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

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

J. stated that the recourse to object and policy of the Act or consideration of the mischief and defect which the Act purports to remedy is only permissible when the language is capable of two constructions. But it has already been seen that for deciding whether the language used by the Legislature is plain or ambiguous

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

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

J. stated that the recourse to object and policy of the Act or consideration of the mischief and defect which the Act purports to remedy is only permissible when the language is capable of two constructions. But it has already been seen that for deciding whether the language used by the Legislature is plain or ambiguous

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

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

J. stated that the recourse to object and policy of the Act or consideration of the mischief and defect which the Act purports to remedy is only permissible when the language is capable of two constructions. But it has already been seen that for deciding whether the language used by the Legislature is plain or ambiguous

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

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

J. stated that the recourse to object and policy of the Act or consideration of the mischief and defect which the Act purports to remedy is only permissible when the language is capable of two constructions. But it has already been seen that for deciding whether the language used by the Legislature is plain or ambiguous

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1082/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

2(c), (d), (f ), (i), (j) and (k ) of its Trust Deed, as well as the activities undertaken in pursuance of the same, as listed in the 'Note on its activities' (refer PB pgs. 8,9 and 10). In our considered view, therefore, the appellant-trust qualifies to be a charitable trust as well. Accordingly, it is to be allowed

SHRI SHRUTHIPARAMPARA GURUKULAM,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-3, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1083/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

2(c), (d), (f ), (i), (j) and (k ) of its Trust Deed, as well as the activities undertaken in pursuance of the same, as listed in the 'Note on its activities' (refer PB pgs. 8,9 and 10). In our considered view, therefore, the appellant-trust qualifies to be a charitable trust as well. Accordingly, it is to be allowed

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 744/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 11Section 2(15)Section 234ASection 8

J. when he said in Sole Trustee, Loka Sikshana Trust case (supra) that "if the profits must necessarily feed a charitable purpose under the terms of the trust, the mere fact that the activities of the trust yield profit will not alter the charitable character of the trust.” ix. The ld. A.R. placed further reliance on the decision

SRI. MARAMMA TEMPLE SEVA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 818/BANG/2015[N.A.]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2015

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri. Abraham P. Georgei.T.A No818/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year : Na) Sri Maramma Temple Seva Trust, No.11, Maramma Temple Street, 1St Main Road, Vyalikaval, Bengaluru 560 003 .. Appellant Pan : Aants4131R V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (E), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. Sudhakar Rao, Cit – Dr-I Heard On : 21.10.2015 Pronounced On : 30.10.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sudhakar Rao, CIT – DR-I
Section 12A

27)." 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that a trust can be either for religious purposes or for charitable purposes or it can be for both charitable and religious purposes. 12. An identical definition of the phrase "charitable purpose" was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Fazlul Rabbi Pradhan vs. State

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1394/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.L. Sowmya Achar, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 211Section 234Section 80I

Trust: 247 ITR 785 [TS-5005-SC-2001-O] Page 21 of 48 - UOI v. Onkar Kanwar : [TS-5021-SC-2002-O] - CIT v. A. J. Abraham Anthraper : [TS-5230-HC-2004(Kerala)-O] - Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT : [TS-6051-HC-2001(Bombay)-O] - CIT v. L.G Balakrishnan: [TS-5374-HC-2001(Madras)-O] - CIT v. Quantas Airlines

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

ITA 114/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(2)Section 80I

Trust: 247 ITR 785 [TS-5005-SC- 2001-O] - UOI v. Onkar Kanwar : [TS-5021-SC-2002-O] - CIT v. A. J. Abraham Anthraper : [TS-5230-HC- 2004(Kerala)-O] - Vijay Omprakash Bansal v. CIT : [TS-6051-HC- 2001(Bombay)-O] - CIT v. L.G Balakrishnan: [TS-5374-HC- 2001(Madras)-O] - CIT v. Quantas Airlines

M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 172/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

For Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate &
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 2Section 234

27 trust has been borrowing money from SCDCC Bank on interest and thereafter lends the same to various SHG’s by charging interest on the amounts lent. These SHG’S further utilises the money advanced by the assessee for its members or to any others who are in need of such funds. Hence, in our view, this activity

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS RANGE , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

ITA 1104/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

27 of 42 further prejudice the computation of income by not adopting the matching principles is further erroneous in law. It is submitted that the amendment to Section 2(15) was carried q) out to tax entities wearing the mask of charity but in fact carrying on commercial activities. In the course of budget speech for 2009, Hon'ble Finance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

ITA 1087/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

27 of 42 further prejudice the computation of income by not adopting the matching principles is further erroneous in law. It is submitted that the amendment to Section 2(15) was carried q) out to tax entities wearing the mask of charity but in fact carrying on commercial activities. In the course of budget speech for 2009, Hon'ble Finance

M/S RABIYA BASARI BRAHAMATH-ULLAH ALLAYHA CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 423/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Kum. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 1Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

27-09-2013. In the said order, the ld. CIT once again took the view that the object clauses 2,3,7,8,14,16 & 17 of the Trust Deed dated 31-01-2013 are for a specific religious community and hence the trust gets hit by the mischief of the provisions of section

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1084/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2023

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

For Appellant: Sri.B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

27 taxmann.com 100 (Nagpur Trib) referring to the above decisions held that worship of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple cannot be regarded as for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion and granted the approval under section 80G of the I.T.Act. The relevant observations from the decision are as under:- “The objects

SRI ASHVALAYANA VRUNDA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1085/BANG/2022[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2023

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

For Appellant: Sri.B.R.Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

27 taxmann.com 100 (Nagpur Trib) referring to the above decisions held that worship of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple cannot be regarded as for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion and granted the approval under section 80G of the I.T.Act. The relevant observations from the decision are as under:- “The objects

SHROUTA VIJNAM GURUKULAM,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTIONS, MANGALORE

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

ITA 694/BANG/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 May 2024

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : Na M/S. Shrouta Vijnan Gurukulam, Vs. Ito (Exemptions), 1 Nidagod, Targod B. O. Ward – 1, Arasapur, Mangaluru. Uttara Kannada – 561 402. Pan : Aants 0655 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prakash S Hegde, Ca Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(E)’S Order Dated 22.02.2024 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Seeking Approval Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Prakash S Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

27 taxmann.com 100 (Nagpur Trib) referring to the above decisions held that worship of Lord Shiva, Hanumanji, Goddess Durga and maintaining of temple cannot be regarded as for the advancement support or propagation of a particular religion and granted the approval under section 80G of the I.T.Act. The relevant observations from the decision are as under:- “The objects