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

b)sub-clause (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

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.

b) of sub section 1 shall be passed before the expiry of 6 months from the end of the month in which the application was received under section 12A of the Act. As per provisions of section 12A (i)(a), application for registration of trust or institution in the prescribed form should be filed within a period of one year

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. 16. In rejoinder, the learned AR submitted the case laws relied on by learned Standing Counsel is distinguishable to facts of instant case. It was submitted that in the case of Novodaya Educational Society Vs. DCIT (supra), assessee in that case has neither filed Form 10 electronically or manually before the passing of the intimation under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE vs. M/S CENTRE FPR CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR PLATFORMS , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

condonation petition for delay in filing the application for registration u/s. 12A [for the AYs under dispute] has not yet been decided by the CBDT and, therefore, the total incomes of the assessee were to be assessed as per commercial principles. The CIT(A) was also not justified in taking a similar stand that of the AO, without taking cognizance

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

1][d] of the Act, corpus donations made with a specific direction or purpose that it shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution is kept out of the purview of "income". Thus the legal position is that the donations or contributions received by a trust or institution constitutes income but corpus donations made with specific directions

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

1][d] of the Act, corpus donations made with a specific direction or purpose that it shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution is kept out of the purview of "income". Thus the legal position is that the donations or contributions received by a trust or institution constitutes income but corpus donations made with specific directions

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

1][d] of the Act, corpus donations made with a specific direction or purpose that it shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution is kept out of the purview of "income". Thus the legal position is that the donations or contributions received by a trust or institution constitutes income but corpus donations made with specific directions

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

1][d] of the Act, corpus donations made with a specific direction or purpose that it shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution is kept out of the purview of "income". Thus the legal position is that the donations or contributions received by a trust or institution constitutes income but corpus donations made with specific directions

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

1][d] of the Act, corpus donations made with a specific direction or purpose that it shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution is kept out of the purview of "income". Thus the legal position is that the donations or contributions received by a trust or institution constitutes income but corpus donations made with specific directions

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

1][d] of the Act, corpus donations made with a specific direction or purpose that it shall form part of the corpus of the trust or institution is kept out of the purview of "income". Thus the legal position is that the donations or contributions received by a trust or institution constitutes income but corpus donations made with specific directions

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 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

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

GOWDA SARASWATH SAMAJ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear: 2018-19

section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, this reasoning of the Ld. CIT(A) would also fail. Page 5 of 7 10. The next reasoning given by Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has not furnished any proof that the audit report was filed electronically. The Ld. A.R. submitted that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-3, BANGALORE vs. SRI RAMAIAH REDDY EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George K & Padmavathy S

12A(1)(b) of the income tax Act." 4. Aggrieved by the Order passed under section 154 of the Act, assessee Trust filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that assessee Trust has valid registration / approval under section 12AA of the Act which

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

M/S. H M V EDUCATIONAL CULTURAL & SOCIAL TRUST, ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER[EXEMPTIONS], WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K., Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

condonation of delay u/s 119[2][b] for the delay in filing the Form No. 10B under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the taxation of gross receipts of Rs. 10,22,94,076/-, without allowing the application/ expenses