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

iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB:\n7.\nSatisfaction of the Assessing Officer\n7.1 It is seen from the evidences gathered during the search and the submissions of the assessee\nthat the assessee has applied its income for purposes other than for the objects of the trust and\nfurther the assessee has generated cash through bogus billings and utilized

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

iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB:\nSatisfaction of the Assessing Officer\n7.1 It is seen from the evidences gathered during the search and the submissions of the assessee\nthat the assessee has applied its income for purposes other than for the objects of the trust and\nfurther the assessee has generated cash through bogus billings and utilized

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

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

iii) The aforesaid ceiling of Rs. 25,000 of accumulated income from\nproperty of previous year, will get lifted under section 11(2) to the\nextent the balance of such accumulated income is invested as laid\ndown by section 11(2). To take an illustration if, say, an additional\namount of Rs. 20,000 out of the balance of accumulated

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

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.

Charitable Trust (for short the "trust"). The assessee, 46 IT(TP)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/s.United Spirits Limited. as per the MOU, had acquired a right to use the court yard for their business of hotel, being run in the palace, more efficiently and profitably. The question is whether the expenditure of Rs.10 lakh resulted in any addition to the fixed capital

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

iii. On the issue of loan to Mr. K Girish, assessee submitted that trust has obtained loan from Mr. K Girish which is recorded in the books of accounts and same has been repaid through banking channel. The trust is not aware of any transaction between managing trustee Mr. John and Mr. K Girish for property at Bangalore. The trust

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

iii) Sophie\nSivasankar\nP. Shyamaraju\n22.12.2021\n34,03,75,000/-\n3.1.2 As per the findings of search proceeding, during the FY 2015-16\nShri Umesh S. Raju purchased one property near present campus of\nREVA University situated at Rukmini Knowledge Park, Kattigenahalli,\nSH104, Srinivasa Nagar, Bangalore-64, which functions under Rukmini\nEducational Charitable Trust, Bangalore as under:\nSurvey No.\nName

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1), from the first of the assessment year for which it was provisionally registered: Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust, Bangalore Page 16 of 25 Provided further that where registration has been granted to the trust or institution under section 12AA or section 12AB ], then, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

36,768/-, which is to be utilized to set off excess income over expenditure for the AY 2017-18 of Rs.50,23,822/-. 10.1 Under the above facts & circumstances, the moot issue that is to be decided in the present case is whether any excess expenditure incurred by trust/charitable institution in earlier assessment year can be allowed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

iii) Amendments to the Deed/Memorandum, Rules and Regulations, if any, of the Trust/Institution shall be made only with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) or any other prescribed authority under the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) The registration may be withdrawn on violation of any of the stipulations laid down in the Income

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

36,21,781 expended by the assessee qualifies as an application of income for charitable purposes under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, which states that: (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

36,21,781 expended by the assessee qualifies as an application of income for charitable purposes under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 11(1)(a) of the Act, which states that: (a) income derived from property held under trust wholly for charitable or religious purposes

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The appellant has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that eventualities stated in ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 27 of 183 section 132(1)(a) / (b) exist. Therefore, section 132(4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The appellant has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that eventualities stated in ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 27 of 183 section 132(1)(a) / (b) exist. Therefore, section 132(4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The appellant has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that eventualities stated in ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 27 of 183 section 132(1)(a) / (b) exist. Therefore, section 132(4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The appellant has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that eventualities stated in ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 27 of 183 section 132(1)(a) / (b) exist. Therefore, section 132(4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The appellant has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that eventualities stated in ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 27 of 183 section 132(1)(a) / (b) exist. Therefore, section 132(4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

iii) read with section 132(1)(a) / (b). The appellant has established that the authorising officer could not have formed a reasonable belief that eventualities stated in ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 27 of 183 section 132(1)(a) / (b) exist. Therefore, section 132(4A) cannot come into play. Consequently, section 292C does not apply. 47. Without prejudice