SRI CHANNAMALLIKARJUNA TRUST COMMITTEE,KOPPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Sri Channamallikarjuna Trust Cit (Exemption), Vs. Committee Gangavathi Bengaluru. Sri Mallikarjuna Mutta – Gangavathi, District Koppal – 583 227. Pan : Aajts 7938 J Appellant Respondent

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. One Shri. Channabasavaswamy, a resident of Gangavathi town in the erstwhile Raichur District of Nizam Area, now Koppal District of Karnataka created a Mutt in Gangavathi Town called Sri Mallikarjuna Mutt. He installed an idol of Sri ChnnaMallikarjunaSwamy to perform pooja, out of food grains, cattle, cash and land donated by devotees

UMBRELLA FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now brief facts of the case are that on receipt of application in form 10AB dated 26.06.2024 for approval u/s 80G(5) of the Act, the ld. CIT(E) granted opportunity of being heard to the assessee vide notice dated 4.11.2024, wherein the assessee was required to appear before

SHRI GURU GAJADANDESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,DEVARABHUPUR, LINGASAGUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1, KALBURGI, KALBURGI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust 1 Devarabhupur Post Devabhupur Cit (Exemption) Lingasugur Vs. Ward-1 Raichur 584 139 Kalburgi Karnataka Pan No : Aazts9450P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Ramanagowda S Gowdari, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Sridhar E., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption) Dated 26.9.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Exm/F/Exm45/2024-25/1069118346(1) Cancelling The Approval U/S 80G Of The Act Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

80G of the Act of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Shri Guru Gajadandeshwara Charitable Trust, Raichur Page 2 of 10 3. At the outset, the ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 99 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal

SHRI PURUSHOTTAMA NARASIMHA BHARATI SANATANA SABHA,UTTARA KANNADA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee trust is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2024-25

condone the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for the adjudication. 4. Now coming to brief facts of the case is that the assessee trust was granted provisional registration vide no. AALTS5798QE20206 under 02-Sub clause (vi) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A dated 27.05.2021 from

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

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice

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

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice

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

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice

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.

80G is not an issue in dispute. 7. So far as registration under section 12A are concerned, we find that assessee has moved an application for registration under section 12A on 25.05.1999 seeking registration from 01.04.1998 from the inception of the University. But this application was not taken cognizance by the CIT and it was kept pending with him. Thereafter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 16. The Ground No 1 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 16.1 The Ground No 2 deals with disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. The brief facts of the case are as under- During the year, the assessee earned exempt income being interest

M/S. OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY OF INDIA KARNATAKA ,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

5) of\nthe Act, the institution was to make an application for grant of\napproval under clause (iii) where the institution or fund has been\nprovisionally approved atleast 6 months prior to expiry of period of\nprovisional approval or within 6 months of this commencement of its\nactivities, whichever is earlier. According to this section, assessee\nought to have been

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the\nappeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\N\Nita No. 881/Bang/2023\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nvs.\N\Ndy. Commissioner Of Income Tax\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\Nkoramangala, Bangalore – 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nrespondent\N\Nita No. 245/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year: 2019-20\N\Njt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd)\Ncircle - 3(1)(1)\Nroom No. 241, 2Nd Floor\Nbmtc Building, 80 Feet Road\N6Th Block, Koramangala\Nbangalore - 560095\Nkarnataka\N\Nvs.\N\Ninfosys Limited\Nplot 44, Konappana Agrahara\Nhosur Road, Konappana\Nbangalore - 560100\Nkarnataka\N\Npan: Aaaci4798L\N\Nappellant\N\Nrespondent\N\Nassessee By\Ndepartment By\N\Nsri Padam Chand Khincha – Ca\Nsmt. Srinandini Das – Cit - Dr\N\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N\N09.05.2025\N06.08.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Cross Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of\Nincome Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short \"Ld.\Ncit(A)/Nfac] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056786183(1) Dated 05.10.2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act\") For The A.Y.2019-20.\N\Npage 2 Of 34\N\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - \N\N\"1.\N\Ngeneral Ground\N\N1.

condone the delay and admit the appeal for\nadjudication on merits.\n\n16. The Ground No 1 is general in nature and does not require any\nadjudication.\n\n16.1 The Ground No 2 deals with disallowance under section 14A\nread with rule 8D. The brief facts of the case are as under-\n\nDuring the year, the assessee earned exempt

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

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

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice

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

5. That, the order for rejection of 80G approval and registration granted under 12AB of the income tax ACT/1961 as Religious trust was come to know trough e-proceedings upon verification by the CA Basavaraj Sajjan, regular auditor and tax compliance care taker which was passed on 26/09/2024. subsequently, due to tax audit and time barring works, the regular

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

5. That, the order for rejection of 80G approval and registration granted under 12AB of the income tax ACT/1961 as Religious trust was come to know trough e-proceedings upon verification by the CA Basavaraj Sajjan, regular auditor and tax compliance care taker which was passed on 26/09/2024. subsequently, due to tax audit and time barring works, the regular

SHRI GURUDARBAR SEVA MANDAL BELGAUM,BELGAUM vs. CIT (EXEMPTIONS) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2024-25

condone the delay in filing Form No. IOA/IOAB, as the same could not be filed in such cases within the last extended date, i.e., 30-9-2023. 3. On consideration of the matter, with a view to avoid and mitigate genuine hardship in such cases, the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119 of the Act, hereby