ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

12A of the Act, granted vide order dated 23/05/1996. The assessee filed its return of income, declaring NIL income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to payments made to persons specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. The details of such payments are as follows: Party

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

12A of the Act, granted vide order dated 23/05/1996. The assessee filed its return of income, declaring NIL income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to payments made to persons specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. The details of such payments are as follows: Party

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

Ac have different wordings wherein the provisions of sub-section(3) used “shall”, whereas the provisions of sub-section (4) uses the word “may”. He further submitted that cancellation of the registration results into serious consequences which is penal in nature and therefore discretion is confirmed which should be used on the basis of strong evidence and not merely

SHRI. BHADRESHWAR EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION , GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

ac) of sub section (1) of section 12A of the Act on 27.05.2021 w.e.f. AY 2021-22 to AY 2023-24 vide provisional registration no. AANTS2522GE20206. It is also an undisputed fact that the assessee trust is also provisionally approved u/s. 80G(5) of the Act on 28.05.2021 effective from 28.05.2021 to AY 2024-25 vide provisional approval no. AANTS2522GF20214

ANUGRAHA EDUCATION TRUST,SULLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A of the Act vide Unique registration No. AABTA0843JE20213 dated 24.9.2021 from the assessment year 2022-23 to 2026-27. Further, the assessee trust has been granted the provisional approval dated 31/12/2021 under clause (iv) of first proviso to sub-section (5) of section 80G from 31.12.2021 to assessment year

ELECTRONIC CITY INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeals for Assessment Year 2011-12 is allowed as indicated above & revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

disallowed exemption under Section 11 of the Act in the light of the proviso to Sec.2(15) of the Act . The co- ordinate Bench, after considering the objects and activities of the assessee as well as analyzing the applicability of the said proviso in the light of various judicial precedents held that the proviso

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. vide Form No. 10AC dated 24.09.2021 (copy enclosed). 1.3 1.4 The objects of the trust are: (a) To promote establish and conduct activities in the fields of education, literacy, science, technology, fine arts, tourism, environmental science, adventure culture, social, medical public health and/or any other service activities to promote

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

AC 571 in the following words: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance of depreciation of Rs 64,91,659/- as made by the Assessing Officer (Sic., should be Rs.28,08,484/-) holding that the amendment to section 11(6) is applicable from AY 2014-15 and relying upon the decisions which are rendered in different context. On proper appreciation of the facts and law applicable, the amendment to section