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

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

35 of 176 14. ……….. What these last concluding words require is not that the trust or institution whose purpose is advancement of an object of general public utility should not carry on any activity for profit at all but that the purpose of the trust or institution should not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. So long

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

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

35 of 176 14. ……….. What these last concluding words require is not that the trust or institution whose purpose is advancement of an object of general public utility should not carry on any activity for profit at all but that the purpose of the trust or institution should not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. So long

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

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

35 of 176 14. ……….. What these last concluding words require is not that the trust or institution whose purpose is advancement of an object of general public utility should not carry on any activity for profit at all but that the purpose of the trust or institution should not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. So long

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

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

35 of 176 14. ……….. What these last concluding words require is not that the trust or institution whose purpose is advancement of an object of general public utility should not carry on any activity for profit at all but that the purpose of the trust or institution should not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. So long

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

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

35 of 176 14. ……….. What these last concluding words require is not that the trust or institution whose purpose is advancement of an object of general public utility should not carry on any activity for profit at all but that the purpose of the trust or institution should not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. So long

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

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

35 of 176 14. ……….. What these last concluding words require is not that the trust or institution whose purpose is advancement of an object of general public utility should not carry on any activity for profit at all but that the purpose of the trust or institution should not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. So long

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

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

35 of 176 14. ……….. What these last concluding words require is not that the trust or institution whose purpose is advancement of an object of general public utility should not carry on any activity for profit at all but that the purpose of the trust or institution should not involve the carrying on of any activity for profit. So long

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,000 if not invested as per sub-section (2) of\nsection 11 will be added to the taxable income of the trust and will\nnot get exempted from the tax net.\n(v) If on the other hand the entire remaining accumulated income of\nRs. 55,000 is wholly invested as per section 11(2) the said entire\namount

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

iv) or trust or institution referred to in\nsub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in\nsub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-\nclause (via), of clause (23C) of section 10, or any trust, or institution referred to\nin section 11, has committed any specified violation as defined

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

iv) or trust or institution referred to in\nsub-clause (v) or any university or other educational institution referred to in\nsub-clause (vi) or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-\nclause (via), of clause (23C) of section 10, or any trust, or institution referred to\nin section 11, has committed any specified violation as defined

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

IV. No alteration shall be made to this Memorandum of Association or to the Articles of Association of the Company which are for the time being in ITA Nos.744 & 745/Bang/2023 Sanghamitra Rural Financial Services, Bangalore Page 24 of 54 force, unless the alteration has been previously submitted to and approved by the Regional Director. V.. The Liability

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

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

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

iv] of the Act. 4. The appellant denies itself liable to be charged to tax u/s.115JB of the Act, in as much as, no tax is liable to be paid under normal provisions and consequently, the provisions of Section 115JB of the Act cannot be invoked. 5. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG

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

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

iv) The other aims and objects of the trust shall be: (a) To promote the principles of self-help and self-reliance amongst the poor sections of the population. (b) To promote and administer schemes for self-employment of the persons belonging to poorer and disadvantaged sections of the population. (c) To promote and administer self-financing scheme for improving

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

charitable or religious trust or institution that has been registered u/s 12A), Form 10BB (Audit report under section 10(23C) of the Act) and the Form 3CD. The afore-mentioned facts were also brought under the order of the CIT(A). The assessee is claiming exemptions available to both 10(23C)(vi) and 12A registered entities and moreover the assessee

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

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

iv] In this regard the appellant wishes to humbly submit that as facts narrated above which is not disputed by the authorities below, which clearly establish that the amounts received by the appellant from its devotees for a specific purpose of construction of temple and Samudaya Bhavan, which is treated as corpus fund do not constitute income

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

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

iv] In this regard the appellant wishes to humbly submit that as facts narrated above which is not disputed by the authorities below, which clearly establish that the amounts received by the appellant from its devotees for a specific purpose of construction of temple and Samudaya Bhavan, which is treated as corpus fund do not constitute income

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

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

iv] In this regard the appellant wishes to humbly submit that as facts narrated above which is not disputed by the authorities below, which clearly establish that the amounts received by the appellant from its devotees for a specific purpose of construction of temple and Samudaya Bhavan, which is treated as corpus fund do not constitute income

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

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

iv] In this regard the appellant wishes to humbly submit that as facts narrated above which is not disputed by the authorities below, which clearly establish that the amounts received by the appellant from its devotees for a specific purpose of construction of temple and Samudaya Bhavan, which is treated as corpus fund do not constitute income