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.

179 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 37(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi498Karnataka475Mumbai432Chennai219Bangalore179Ahmedabad108Jaipur102Hyderabad89Kolkata79Chandigarh57Pune56Lucknow39Cochin38Amritsar35Allahabad33Indore24Cuttack23Visakhapatnam20Surat19Agra16Calcutta16Rajkot10Nagpur10Telangana9Kerala8SC8Jodhpur6Varanasi6Raipur4Rajasthan3Patna2Dehradun2Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Guwahati1Jabalpur1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 11156Section 12A85Section 153A69Addition to Income68Section 2(15)61Exemption58Section 13242Section 143(3)34Disallowance33

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

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

Showing 1–20 of 179 · Page 1 of 9

...
Section 153C32
Section 225
Depreciation21

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

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

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

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

ITA 2109/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

37,713/-\n30,01,23,000/-\n145,41,60,713/-\nTotal funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n145,41,60,713/-\n3.15 However, the trustees have neither returned the amount, nor transferred the property in the\nname of the Trust, which indicates that there is no intention to transfer these lands to the Trust

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2006/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 115TSection 12ASection 13Section 133A

Charitable Trust, 103 taxmann.com 419 and also the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shanmugham Trust [2024] 165 taxmann.com 669. ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 19 of 37 11. With respect to the violation of the provisions of section 13(1

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

ITA 2106/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

37,713/- 30,01,23,000/- 145,41,60,713/- Total funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n145,41,60,713/- 3.15 However, the trustees have neither returned the amount, nor transferred the property in the\nname of the Trust, which indicates that there is no intention to transfer these lands to the Trust

SADIYA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST vs. CIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeals are allowed

ITA 422/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. Nos.422 & 1632/Bang/2013 M/S. Sadiya Educational & Charitable Trust, Mattadgadde Road, Sadiya Nagar, Shiralkoppa-577 428 …. Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT (D.R)
Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

37................................. 38. Unquestionably, objects (c) and (f) which provide for the activities completely religious in nature and restricted to the specific community of the respondent-trust are objects with religious purpose only. However, in respect to the other objects, in our view the fact that the said objects trace their source to the Holy Quran and resolve to abide

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

ITA 182/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 255(4)

37 of the Indian Income\ntax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of the Income\ntax Act, 1961, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the\nIndian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under subsection (1) of section 142 of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961, is issued to M/s. Blueline Foods (India

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)

37................................. 38. Unquestionably, objects (c) and (f) which provide for the activities completely religious in nature and restricted to the specific community of the respondent-trust are objects with religious purpose only. However, in respect to the other objects, in our view the fact that the said objects trace their source to the Holy Quran and resolve to abide

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

ITA 2107/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

37,713/- 30,01,23,000/-\n145,41,60,713/-\nTotal funds transferred from charitable trust, RECT to\ntrustees (Amount in Rs.)\n145,41,60,713/-\n3.15 However, the trustees have neither returned the amount, nor transferred the property in the\nname of the Trust, which indicates that there is no intention to transfer these lands to the Trust

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1267/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri N. Suresh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

charitable or religious purposes or in part only for such purposes, or of income being voluntary contributions referred to in sub- clause (iia) of clause (24) of section 2, shall, if the total income in respect of which he is assessable as a representative assessee (the total income for this purpose being computed under this Act without giving effect

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1126/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Phalguna Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shahnawaz Ul Rahman, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

37,176/- 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is a Trust situated at Gulbarga, Karnataka carrying on public charitable educational activities since 25.4.2016. The assessee has applied for registration u/s 12AA of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for the first time on 31.3.2021 by online. The CPC has given the registration u/s 12AB

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

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: \nShri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

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. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1076/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

Trust reported in 303 ITR 360 wherein the Hon’ble Court held has that the balance in current account is also treated as investment as per section 11(5) of the Act to claim the deduction provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 19.1 The assessee in form 35 (statement of facts before the ld. CIT-A) also submitted

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

ITA 1075/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

Trust reported in 303 ITR 360 wherein the Hon’ble Court held has that the balance in current account is also treated as investment as per section 11(5) of the Act to claim the deduction provided under section 11(2) of the Act. 19.1 The assessee in form 35 (statement of facts before the ld. CIT-A) also submitted

M/S NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 553/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Section 143(3) of the Act of the assessment cannot be reopened without any allegation by the Assessing Officer that there was non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee while framing the original assessment. Hence,S we are inclined to annul the assessment. Since we have annulled the assessment, we are refrained to go into other grounds

M/S.NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 552/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Section 143(3) of the Act of the assessment cannot be reopened without any allegation by the Assessing Officer that there was non-disclosure of true and correct facts by the assessee while framing the original assessment. Hence,S we are inclined to annul the assessment. Since we have annulled the assessment, we are refrained to go into other grounds

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

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

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

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 234Section 255Section 255(3)Section 36

Charitable Trust (supra) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing substantial justice

M/S KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORT PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BELLARY RANGE , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1654/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd., [For & On Behalf Of The Joint Erstwhile Partnership Commissioner Of Firm M/S. Kumaraswamy Income Tax, Mineral Exports], Bellary Range, No. 58, Cunningham Vs. Bellary. Road Cross, Bangalore – 560 052. Pan: Aabfk8539K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit Dr(Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 22/03/2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A), Gulbarga For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax [Appeals]-4, Bengaluru Dated 22/03/2018 & The Order Of Assessment Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer Under Section 143 [3] Of The Act Dated 28/03/2014, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances In The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143Section 14ASection 234Section 37

charitable or public cause or in the public interest results in the Government giving patronage or benefit can be no ground to deny the assessee a deduction of that amount under Section 37(1) of the Act, when such payment has been made for the purposes of assessee's business. In fact, it can be noticed under

THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - (EXEMPTIONS ) CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU vs. M/S A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1464/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm I.T.A. No.1464/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. A. Shama Rao Foundation, Income-Tax (Exemptions), Circle- 13-2-116, Hotel Srinivas Building, 1, Mangaluru G.H.S. Road, Mangaluru-575 001. [Pan:Aaata 1629 B] (Revenue-Appellant) (Assessee -Respondent) Revenue By Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Assessee By Shri V. Srinivasan, Adv. Date Of Hearing 09/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 03/12/2020 O R D E R

Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A

37,23,247/- and corpus donation received will be only Rs.5,75,44,570/- . 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the voluntary contributions received by the assessee-trust from another trust towards corpus donations is capital in nature and should be excluded from taxation considering the meaning provided in clause (d) of section 11(1