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

ii) of the Act. As per provision to section 80G(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

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

ii) of clause (ac) of sub section (1) of section 12A. In all other respects the trust had complied with provisions of section 12AB just or this technical breach the learned CIT(Exemptions) rejected the renewal of registration. We attach herewith order of IT Chennai wherein Hon. Tribunal has set aside the order of rejection. Shri Gurudarbar Seva Mandal, Belgaum

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

ii) Insurance claim received in respect of flood in Chennai during the FY 2016-17 amounting to Rs. 3,07,45,374 iii) Interest on loans to subsidiaries amounting to Rs.13,35,23,830 ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited Page 3 of 34 iv) Interest on Govt Securities amounting to Rs.4,34,11,632 v) Interest on debentures amounting to Rs.141

SRI SHARADA FOUNDATION TRUST,KOPPAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2024-25

ii) such application was rejected merely on the ground of selection of wrong section code. Page 3 of 6 iii) The appellant vide order dated 21/02/2023 was allowed to file the application afresh selecting the correct section code. iv) The revised application dated 05/10/2023 filed for final registration replaces the original application. On proper consideration of the facts

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

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

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

ULLAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2025-26

5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has failed to comprehend the fact that, "fees receipts" is the revenue generated out of the regular activities carried by the Institution/Trust, which does not comes under the definition of Donation Received under section 80G of the Income tax Act, 1961. 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has wrongly assumed

SRI SRI KRUPA CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2024-25

ii) of the Act. As per provision to section 80G(5) of Sri Sri Krupa Charitable Trust, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 the Act, the institution was to make an application for grant of approval under clause (iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved atleast 6 months prior to expiry of period of provisional approval or within

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : Na M/S. Garbhagnan Foundation, Vs. Cit (Exemptions), 26 Patalamma Temple Road, Bengaluru. Behind Metrostation South End Circle, Bengaluru – 560 404. Pan : Aadtg 2120 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. V. Gowthama, Ca Revenue By : Shri. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

5) of the Act, the institution/fund shall make an application for grant of approval "(iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier". According to the Section, assessee should have made the application

SHREE KHANDAL VIPRA TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 253(1)(c)(i) of the Act and be pleased to set aside the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent vide order dated 20.11.2024 (attached as Annexure No.7) and remand the matter to the good office of the Respondent for de-novo consideration, with a direction to provide the Appellant with an opportunity of hearing in the interests

SHREE KHANDAL VIPRA TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 253(1)(c)(i) of the Act and be pleased to set aside the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent vide order dated 20.11.2024 (attached as Annexure No.7) and remand the matter to the good office of the Respondent for de-novo consideration, with a direction to provide the Appellant with an opportunity of hearing in the interests

NAVACHETHANA DHARMARTHA SAMSTHEGALU,BENGALURU vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2024-25 M/S. Navachethana Dharmartha Samsthegalu, Vs. Cit (Exemptions), No.6, B M Nilaya, Kithaganaur Colony, Bengaluru. K. R. Puram, Bengaluru – 560 036. Pan : Aadtn 1583 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024

80G of the Act. Page 3 of 4 5. In view of the above, the application filed in FormNo.10AB dated 30.09.2023 for approval u/s.80G of the Act, is hereby rejected.” 5. We notice that CBDT in its press release dated 25.04.2024 had stated that if an earlier application in Form 10AB has been rejected solely for the reason of late

SPARSHA TRUST (R),BANGALORE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION),BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : Na M/S. Sparsha Trust (R), Vs. Cit (Exemptions), No.40, Lahari Nilaya Pipe Line Road, Bengaluru. Sampangappa Layout, Mathikere, Bengaluru – 560 054. Pan : Aaits 4230 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Subramanya Bhat, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Shourya Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

delay was condoned by CBDT vide Circular No.7/2024 dated 25.4.2024, wherein specifically observed as follows: “4.1 Further, in cases where any trust, institution or fund has already made an application in Form No.10AB, and where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has passed an order rejecting such application, on or before the issuance of this Circular, solely on account

PRABODHAN TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : Na M/S. Prabodhan Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Nil, Times Square Apartment, Bengaluru. Green Glen Layout, Bellandur, Bengaluru – 560 103. Pan : Aaetp 6785 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. V. Gowthama, Ca Revenue By : Shri. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

80G(5) of the Act, the institution/fund shall make an application for grant of approval "(iii) where the institution or fund has been provisionally approved, at least six months prior to expiry of the period of the provisional approval or within six months of commencement of its activities, whichever is earlier". According to the Section, assessee should have made