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

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

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

iii) generation of cash through bogus billings/invoicing, including unaccounted unexplained cash transactions across the years. 2. DIVERSION OF CHARITABLE TRUST FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES IN THE NAAN OF TRUSTEES Page 2 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 3.1 On perusal of seized documents and other evidences and statements recorded, it is seen That Mr. P. Shyamaraju and Mr. Umesh S. Raju

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

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

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

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable institutions, social clubs or for charity did not stand to test of commercial expediency - Held, yes - Whether since assessee had not placed any other materials on record in support of their claim of expenditure over community development, so as to apply test of commercial expediency, expenses incurred by assessee for community development was not allowable under section 37(1

MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA STATE MINERALS CORPORATION LIMITED),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

charitable institutions, social clubs or for charity did not stand to test of commercial expediency - Held, yes - Whether since assessee had not placed any other materials on record in support of their claim of expenditure over community development, so as to apply test of commercial expediency, expenses incurred by assessee for community development was not allowable under section 37(1