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

c) omitted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 9 (w.e.f. 1.4.2002).](2)Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June, 2007, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution from the assessment year immediately following the financial year in which such application

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.

condoned. This application of the assessee was also not adjudicated upon by the CIT. Other applications for registration under section 12A was rejected by the CIT on technical grounds despite the fact that at the relevant point of time, assessee was enjoying the recognition under section 80G of the Act. Subsequently, the registration under section 12A was 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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY , BELAGAVI

In the result, the assessee’s cross objections for Assessment Years

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boaz

12A would not grant the assessee a blanket exemption to its income and the University would be required to prove that it satisfies the condition laid down in Sections 11 & 12 of the Act for considering its income to be exempt under the said sections. ITA Nos.2854 to 2860/Bang/2018 C.O. Nos.136 to 142/Bang/2019 Page 5 of 14 On limitation

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

12A of the Act filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 14.9.2017 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The said return was thereafter processed and accordingly intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 16.3.2019 disallowing a sum of Rs.76,29,084/- on the ground that the assessee had claimed exemption under “Amount

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

condonation of delay for filing form 10 prior to assessment year 2016-17. Moreover, the appellant trust has filed form 10B electronically wherein it was mentioned about set apart amount was duly deposited as per section 11(5) of the act, the proof of deposit was submitted before CIT (A) and Jurisdictional AO. Thus, dismiss of appeal without considering

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

C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Bang/2024 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2019-20 Arya Vysya Sangha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1, Vasavi Mahal, Ward 1, Vasavi Mahal Road, Hubli. Chitradurga H.O., Chitradurga – 577 501. PAN : AAATA 4349Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sandeep, CA Respondent by : Shri

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

C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Bang/2024 Assessment years : 2017-18 & 2019-20 Arya Vysya Sangha, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1, Vasavi Mahal, Ward 1, Vasavi Mahal Road, Hubli. Chitradurga H.O., Chitradurga – 577 501. PAN : AAATA 4349Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Sandeep, CA Respondent by : Shri

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

1,52,199/- 6 The Learned Appellate Commissioner, Hubbali erred in disregarding the fact that the impugned income of Rs.5,94,276/-belonged to the Estate of the deceased father of the Appellant and as such the same ought to have been assessed to tax in the hands of the Legal Representatives of the deceased father of the Appellant