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

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

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

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

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

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

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

III [2010 190 TAXMAN 396 (MAD.) 3. Raghubar Automobile & General Finance (P) Ltd. v/s. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 520 (Allahabad) / [2013] 218 Taxman 39 (Allahabad) (MAG.) 4. Sreenivas Charitable Trust v/s. DCIT [2006] 154 TAXMAN 377 (MAD.) 4. The ld. DR, however, opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that assessee has been negligent and the delay should

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

III [2010 190 TAXMAN 396 (MAD.) 3. Raghubar Automobile & General Finance (P) Ltd. v/s. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 520 (Allahabad) / [2013] 218 Taxman 39 (Allahabad) (MAG.) 4. Sreenivas Charitable Trust v/s. DCIT [2006] 154 TAXMAN 377 (MAD.) 4. The ld. DR, however, opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that assessee has been negligent and the delay should

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.

III. Page 3 The recognition under section 80G of the Act was further extended upto 31.03.2010 vide order dated 30.03.2007. The certificate is available at page No. 86 as Annexure IV of the compilation. The recognition under section 80G was extended by the Revenue timely on applications moved by the assessee for renewal of recognition. On the expiry

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

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

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

iii) of ignoring that conditions for invoking said section are fully satisfied in instant case and CIT(A) has also ignored the circular No.5/2014, dated 11 February 2014 which has clarified that Rule 8D of the Rules read with section 14A of the Act provides for disallowance of expenditure even where taxpayer has not earned any exempt income

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.

iii) of ignoring that\nconditions for invoking said section are fully satisfied in instant case and\nCIT(A) has also ignored the circular No.5/2014, dated 11 February 2014\nwhich has clarified that Rule 8D of the Rules read with section 14A of the Act\nprovides for disallowance of expenditure even where taxpayer has not earned\nany exempt income

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

iii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 to enable the appellant trust to get donations for carrying out its objects. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) has failed to comprehend the fact that, appellant has not only having fees receipts it also has other than fees receipts, which are eligible for deduction under section 80G of the Income

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

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

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