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

house and also borrowed a gold loan of Rs.9,13,990 from Muthoot Finance Ltd. This loan was repaid of Rs.1,49,66,540/- to Standard Chartered Bank and Rs.9,30,990/- to the Muthoot Gold Loan. As these loans were never obtained for the benefit of the trust, the repayment of the loan was made out of the trust

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

12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter and show cause as to why the registration granted under Section\n12A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide 12AA vide\ncertificate No. DIT[E]/12A/Vol I/B-706/W-01/02-03 dated 19.03.2003\nshould not be cancelled for the previous

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

12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter and show cause as to why the registration granted under Section\n12A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide 12AA vide\ncertificate No. DIT[E]/12A/Vol I/B-706/W-01/02-03 dated 19.03.2003\nshould not be cancelled for the previous

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

12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter and show cause as to why the registration granted under Section\n12A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide 12AA vide\ncertificate No. DIT[E]/12A/Vol I/B-706/W-01/02-03 dated 19.03.2003\nshould not be cancelled for the previous

ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

House Manipal Udupi Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Karnataka 576 104 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATA2976P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order

DR. T M A PAI FOUNDATION ,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

House Manipal HO Udupi Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Karnataka 576 104 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATD1327M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order

MARGDARSHAN FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands\nallowed

ac)(vi) of\nthe act on 30.11.2022, wherein, the assessee was considered as\n“Charitable”, placed at page 28-29 of paper book.\n2.5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had also filed Form\n10AB (Rule 17A/11AA/2C) with the department on 26.09.2023\nseeking registration u/s. 80G as a consequence of 12A\napplication, copy of the same is placed at page

MARGDARSHAN FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands\nallowed

ac)(vi) of\nthe act on 30.11.2022, wherein, the assessee was considered as\n“Charitable”, placed at page 28-29 of paper book.\n2.5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had also filed Form\n10AB (Rule 17A/11AA/2C) with the department on 26.09.2023\nseeking registration u/s. 80G as a consequence of 12A\napplication, copy of the same is placed at page

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

housing. (18) To accept donations, grants, endowments presents, gifts, aid and other offerings in the shape of movable and/or immovable properties, in cash or in kind for the said purpose and for the betterment of the aims and objects of the Trust . (19) To act in collaboration in collaboration with Central and other appropriate agencies for formulation and execution

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

housing. (18) To accept donations, grants, endowments presents, gifts, aid and other offerings in the shape of movable and/or immovable properties, in cash or in kind for the said purpose and for the betterment of the aims and objects of the Trust . (19) To act in collaboration in collaboration with Central and other appropriate agencies for formulation and execution

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. 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. 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

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