BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

25 results for “disallowance”+ Section 10(23)(iiiad)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi27Bangalore25Mumbai16Cuttack15Jaipur12Chennai10Chandigarh8Indore7Amritsar6Ahmedabad6Pune5Rajkot3Lucknow3Raipur2Cochin2Patna2Varanasi2Kolkata2Visakhapatnam1Jodhpur1Karnataka1Ranchi1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 1067Section 1144Exemption24Section 12A20Section 15415Section 80G9Section 35A9Addition to Income7Disallowance7Section 143(1)

M/S THE AUGUSTINIAN SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. ASST.DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 973/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 11(2)Section 143(2)

disallowed. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(Appeals). 5. Before the CIT(Appeals), the ld. AR contended that the AO ought to have appreciated that an assessable “entity” or a person like a Trust or a Page 3 of 11 Society is quite distinct and separate from the educational “institution” or a “school” run or operated

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 10(22)5
Charitable Trust4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

23. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Queens Educational Society 372 ITR 699 (SC) summed up the law common to Section 10(23C) (iiiad) and (vi) as follows: • Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating persons, the fact that it makes a surplus does not lead to the conclusion that

M/S. A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION,MANGALORE vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10Section 12A

iiiad) and which may be approved by the prescribed authority;” Unnumbered 3rd proviso to Section 10(23C) of the Act sets out 28. certain conditions that are required to be followed by the educational institutions granted approval as follows:- “Provided also that the fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other

SRI SHIVAGANGA YOGA CENTRE,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, HUBLI

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

ITA 1044/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Gowrish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 10Section 11Section 143Section 154

iiiad) in part B – TI, however, the assessee has not selected the drop-down of under " section under which exemption claimed "under filing status in schedule personal information. Therefore exemption claimed in serial No. 9C in schedule part B – TI is not allowed. It was further stated that filing of schedule IE4 is mandatory and exemption under section 10

GRAMA VIDYODAYA SANGHA (REGD),MYSURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 345/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Kotresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234A

disallowed the claim of depreciation at Rs.10,11,146/- and thereby the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act has been denied on the following reasons, which has been mentioned in the communication of proposed adjustment sent u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act vide letter dated 1/3/2019, which is as follows:- M/s. Grama

SREE VISHWABHARATHI CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(1), BENGLAURU, BENGALURU

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

ITA 859/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.H Nagaraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 2(15)Section 69C

23,017/- only. These did not include any voluntary contributions. Against these receipts, the assessee claimed expenditure towards its objects of Rs. 30,45,214/- only. The assessee thus declared total income at NIL. 5. The CPC issued a communication under section 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 1 March 2019. It proposed a disallowance

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

ITA 533/BANG/2022[N/A]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 269S

23 of 50 in accordance with the provisions specified in sub-section (5) of section 11 of the Income tax Act. iv) As per section 11(5) of the Income tax Act, the trust is expected to invest or deposit its money in the forms and modes prescribed therein. However, keeping the money collected by the Trust in the form

THE TAGORE EDUCATION SOCIETY,RANEBENNUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 590/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

section 10(23C) (iiiad), it emerges that legislature had in its mind annual receipts of school or university as the case may be for consideration of exemption limit and not that of total income of society running that school or university. The present case is of a society running a school. The society besides income from running of a school

THE TAGORE EDUCATION SOCIETY,RANEBENNUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 591/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

section 10(23C) (iiiad), it emerges that legislature had in its mind annual receipts of school or university as the case may be for consideration of exemption limit and not that of total income of society running that school or university. The present case is of a society running a school. The society besides income from running of a school

ITI EDUCATION COMMITTEE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

ITA 425/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, ACIT(DR)
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 143(3)

23. The assessee has exercised its option for claiming deduction under Sec.10(23C)(vi) of the Act, vide its letter dated 18-02-2015. It is important to mention here that, as per the provisions of the section 19 3CJ(vi) of the I.T Act,1961 " any university or other educational institution existing solely for educational purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI V C CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), , BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2776/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERSHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2775/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI.V.C.CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 235/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SAGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2777/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SRI. BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 234/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

iiiad) and 10(23C)(vi) and not under s. 11 of the Act. This view of ours is further fortified by the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Saraswath Poor Students Fund (1985) 46 CTR (Kar) 107 : (1984) 150 ITR 142 (Kar). Even otherwise, the material available of record, which was found during search

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. RASTRIYA COMPUTER SAKSHARATA SAMITHI, PUTTUR

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

ITA 1098/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Rastriya The Assistant Computer Saksharata Commissioner Of Samithi, Income Tax Pm Iv 1491, (Exemptions), Sheikmale Building, Circle – 1, Vs. Puttur. Mangaluru. Pan: Aaatr9338J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit S. Bapu, Advocate &
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

disallowed the entire gross receipts of Rs. 5,12,41,115/- of the trust stating that the appellant does not qualify for the exemption u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad) of the Act where as the appellant in his written submission stated that:- "3.1 As submitted, the appellant is charitable trust formed with the object of establishing and administering educational institutions