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

80G of the Act, on 05/08/2016 with effect from the A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. [ii]. It is submitted that as per the first proviso and also the second proviso to section 12A of the Act if the activities and objects of the appellant is one and the same for such preceding year the year in which the registration is granted

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

80G of the Act, on 05/08/2016 with effect from the A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. [ii]. It is submitted that as per the first proviso and also the second proviso to section 12A of the Act if the activities and objects of the appellant is one and the same for such preceding year the year in which the registration is granted

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

80G of the Act, on 05/08/2016 with effect from the A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. [ii]. It is submitted that as per the first proviso and also the second proviso to section 12A of the Act if the activities and objects of the appellant is one and the same for such preceding year the year in which the registration is granted

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

80G of the Act, on 05/08/2016 with effect from the A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. [ii]. It is submitted that as per the first proviso and also the second proviso to section 12A of the Act if the activities and objects of the appellant is one and the same for such preceding year the year in which the registration is granted

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

80G of the Act, on 05/08/2016 with effect from the A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. [ii]. It is submitted that as per the first proviso and also the second proviso to section 12A of the Act if the activities and objects of the appellant is one and the same for such preceding year the year in which the registration is granted

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

ix. The ld. A.R. submitted that it has already filed detailed data, to demonstrate that the assessee’s activity are in the nature of charity and for providing relief to the poor. x. Hence, he prayed to hold that the activities of the assessee are charitable in nature and not hit by the proviso to section

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

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act, by the DIT(Exemption), Bangalore\nvide order dated 26.11.2009. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment\n2\nITA Nos.1265 & 1266/Bang/2024\nA.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13\nKarnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust\nyear 2012-13 on 21.03.2013 declaring income of rupees Nil. The return was\nprocessed by Revenue under Section 143(1) on 31.03.2013.The case

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

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

80G(5)(vi) of the Act, by the DIT(Exemption), Bangalore\nvide order dated 26.11.2009. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment\n2\nITA Nos.1265 & 1266/Bang/2024\nA.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13\nKarnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust\nyear 2012-13 on 21.03.2013 declaring income of rupees Nil. The return was\nprocessed by Revenue under Section 143(1) on 31.03.2013.The case

SHRI SADGURU NIRUPADESHWARA NITYA DASOHA CHARITABLE TRUST ANKALIMATH,MAKAPUR, LINGASURU TQ AND RAICHUR DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1,KALBURGI, KALBURGI,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80G deduction approval. 6. Thereafter, steps were taken to engage an authorized representative who file and represent the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal, Bengaluru to ensure that such lapses do not recur. 7. Aggrieved by the said orders. The appellant wishes to prefer an appeal before f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), however the statutory time

SHRI SADGURU NIRUPADESHWARA NITYA DASOHA CHARITABLE TRUST ANKALIMATH,MUDGAL, LINGASURU TQ RAICHUR DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1,KALBURGI, KALBURGI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80G deduction approval. 6. Thereafter, steps were taken to engage an authorized representative who file and represent the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal, Bengaluru to ensure that such lapses do not recur. 7. Aggrieved by the said orders. The appellant wishes to prefer an appeal before f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), however the statutory time

M/S. CHIRANTHANA,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member M/S. Chiranthana The Commissioner Of F-25, 1St Floor, Income Tax (Exemptions) Shriram Sardhana Apartments, Bangalore Behind M.S Ramaiya Residency, Vs. Bangalure, Karnataka, 560006 Pan : Aabtc808K Appellant Respondent

charitable trust established vide trust deed dated 25/10/13, with following objectives: “2. The object is of the trust are as follows: The object is of the trust for which the trust is established are: I. to organise, conduct training programmes, workshops, public lectures, seminars, conventions, conferences, meetings, gatherings, Street place, film screenings, theatre, and other cultural forms and to undertake

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) was not justified in law in not cancelling or annulling the entire assessment as void ab initio after having held that assessment in the status of AOP is not correct and the appellant is to be assessed as Artificial juridical person on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned

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

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) was not justified in law in not cancelling or annulling the entire assessment as void ab initio after having held that assessment in the status of AOP is not correct and the appellant is to be assessed as Artificial juridical person on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

Charitable Trust v.\nCIT (Exemptions) Lucknow 2016 (4) TMI 1119 - ITAT\nLucknow / [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 276 wherein it was held that\neven when the assessee disputed the correctness of the\nstatement recorded u/s.132(4) and wanted to cross-examine,\nthe adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to\nthe assessee and held that testimony of witnesses

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

Charitable Trust v.\nCIT (Exemptions) Lucknow 2016 (4) TMI 1119 - ITAT\nLucknow / [2016] 49 ITR (Trib) 276 wherein it was held that\neven when the assessee disputed the correctness of the\nstatement recorded u/s.132(4) and wanted to cross-examine,\nthe adjudicating authority did not grant this opportunity to\nthe assessee and held that testimony of witnesses

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

charitable activities by running, schools, engineering colleges and medical colleges. The assessee has been regularly filing the return and for various years the exemption u/s 11 of the Act was allowed. 2.1 A search was carried out in the premises of the assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 6.8.2015. Various documents were seized. Notice u/s 153A

M/S. HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY),BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.259/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 M/S.Himalaya Wellness Company The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As The Himalaya Income-Tax, Circle 6(1)(1) V. Bengaluru. Drug Company), Makali, Tumkur Road Bengaluru – 562 162. Pan : Aadft3025B. (Appellant) (Respondent)

80G of the Act also contrary to the principles of natural justice. 13 The Hon’ble DRP is not justified in upholding the levy of interest of ₹ 49,32,72,981, under section 234B of the IT Act when the conditions for levying such interest did not exist in the present case. For the above reasons and for such other