VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY,BELGAUM vs. CIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri.Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : N.A. Visvesvaraya Technological University, The Commissioner Of Jnana Ganga Campus, Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions), Belagavi. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaajv 0064 F Appellant Respondent : Shri. M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Standing Assessee By Counsel & Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, I.T.P Revenue By : Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 28/01/2021, Passed By Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No.825/2018. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2. In The First Round Of Appeal The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Before This Tribunal Against Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(E), Dated 08/12/2015: 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(E)] Under Section 12A Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The I-T Act), To The Extent It Is Not Retrospective In Effect, Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Unreasonable & Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Law.

condonation of delay should be allowed where public interest is involved. 15.Turning to the facts of the case, we find that assessee has moved an application for registration under section 12A

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

condoning the short delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 7. Now coming to the brief facts of the case are that the assessee Trust e-filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act on 18.1.2018 declaring nil income after

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.41,68,052 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.41,68,052 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

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

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A

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

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A

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

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A

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

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A

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

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A

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

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available." 5.2 This clearly goes to prove that the first proviso to section 12A

BANGALORE STOCK EXCHANGE CUSTOMER PROTECTION FUND ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (E), WARD-1, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit both the appeals for adjudication. 7. Now we take up ITA No.2245/Bang/2024 for the AY 2016-17 as the base appeal for adjudication. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ("CIT(A)") are based on incorrect appreciation of facts

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay is not material, if it is supported with sufficient reason. The Court can take a pragmatic approach to the honest litigant and the Court cannot help a dormant person who slept over the order of the Commissioner who denied registration under section 12A(a) to the Kerala Cricket Association. If they are vigilant enough that the denial

MR. LALASAB IMAMSAB ARAGANJI,GADAG vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GADAG

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay is not material, if it is supported with sufficient reason. The Court can take a pragmatic approach to the honest litigant and the Court cannot help a dormant person who slept over the order of the Commissioner who denied registration under section 12A(a) to the Kerala Cricket Association. If they are vigilant enough that the denial

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

condone the delay of filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off the same on merits. 8. Brief facts of the case are as follows: Assessee is a Public Charitable Trust registered under section 12A

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

MARINE DRISHTI AND COASTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

MARINE DRISHTI AND COSTAL FOUNDATION ,GOA vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee “Marine Drishti Coastal Foundation” was incorporated on 24/05/2022 under section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 as a non-profit organization to promote commerce, arts, science, sports, education, research, charity, protection of the environment, promote diverse cultural and heritage

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay was not condoned and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act vide certificate dated 14.11.1975. During the impugned year, the assessee filed appeal within the due date and claimed exemption in terms