SREE DHARMA SASTHA HARIHARA SEVA CHARITABLE TEMPLE TRUST,ERUMELY vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundrarajan K., Jm

2(15) of the Act. Similarly, assistance by the assessee-trust to the needy and poor for religious activities would not divest the trust of its altruist character. Therefore, the objects of the trust exhibited the dual tenor of religious and charitable purposes and activities. Section 11

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOCHI vs. YOGAKSHEMA TRUST, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K., Vp & Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer .......... Appellant 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Old Railway Station Road, Cochi 682018 [Pan: Aaaty0284A] Vs. Yogakshema Trust .......... Respondent Keshava Smrithi, Chitra Lane, Aluva 683101

charitable trusts registered under Section 12", the same objectives for which the trust has been incorporated. The allegation raised by the assessing authority is that "the same should be for a definite or concrete purpose or purposes, since Section 11(2

AYANA CHARITABLE TRUST,THIRUVALLA vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

trusts had complied with all three conditions laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act: 1. Form 10 was filed timely specifying the purpose; 2. Funds were invested as per Section 11(5); 3. Accumulated amounts were utilized within five years strictly for declared purposes. Hence, the allegation is false and ought not be upheld. e) Allegation: Capital expenditure

M/S.BELIEVERS EASTERN CHURCH,THIRUVALLA vs. THE CIT (EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

trusts had complied with all three conditions laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act: 1. Form 10 was filed timely specifying the purpose; 2. Funds were invested as per Section 11(5); 3. Accumulated amounts were utilized within five years strictly for declared purposes. Hence, the allegation is false and ought not be upheld. e) Allegation: Capital expenditure

LOVE INDIA MINISTRIES,THIRUVALLA vs. THE DCIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

trusts had complied with all three conditions laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act: 1. Form 10 was filed timely specifying the purpose; 2. Funds were invested as per Section 11(5); 3. Accumulated amounts were utilized within five years strictly for declared purposes. Hence, the allegation is false and ought not be upheld. e) Allegation: Capital expenditure

LAST HOUR MINISTRY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT(EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

trusts had complied with all three conditions laid down under Section 11(2) of the Act: 1. Form 10 was filed timely specifying the purpose; 2. Funds were invested as per Section 11(5); 3. Accumulated amounts were utilized within five years strictly for declared purposes. Hence, the allegation is false and ought not be upheld. e) Allegation: Capital expenditure

SREE ANJANEYA MEDICAL TRUST,KOZHIKODE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 (1), KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Acit, Circle - 2 17/501X-1, Kanchas Building Aayakar Bhavan Opp. Indoor Stadium Mananachira Vs. Rajaji Road, New Bus Stand Kozhikode 673001 Kozhikode 673004 [Pan: Aahts3844B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

2) was brought in the statute only as a retrospective effect, with a view not to affect genuine charitable trusts and societies carrying on genuine charitable objects in the earlier years and substantive conditions stipulated in section 11

ALL INDIA SPICES EXPORTERS FORUM,ERNAKULAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD, ERNAKULAM

Appeal is allowed, Ground No

Bench: The Expiry Of Time Allowed U/S 139(1). As Per Section 11(2), As Applicable For Ay 2014-15 There Was No Date Specified As To The Period Within Which The Form Has To Be Filed For Availing Exemption. The Amendment In Section 11(2) That Filing Of Necessary Forms Before The Due Date Of Filing Return As A Pre-Condition To Claim The Exemption Under Section 11(2) Was Substituted By The Finance Act With Effect From 01.04.2016 Which Is Not Applicable For Ay 2014- 15. Hence The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Went Wrong In Denying The Exemption.

2 Assessment Year 2014-2015 3. The facts as emerging from the record are that the Assessee is public charitable trust registered under Section 12A of the Act. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 was filed by the Assessee on 31/03/2015 disclosing ‘Nil’ income after claiming exemption under Section 11

MALANADU MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

charitable purpose if gross income includes income derived from profit and gains of business unless the business is incidental to the attainment of its objectives. 3. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the proviso to Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed

MALANADU FARMERS SOCIETY ,KOTTAYAM vs. DCIT EXEMPTIONS, TVM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

charitable purpose if gross income includes income derived from profit and gains of business unless the business is incidental to the attainment of its objectives. 3. In such circumstances, you are requested to explain why the proviso to Section 2(15) will not be applicable in your case and the exemption allowed by Assessing Officer should not be disallowed

VISHWAKARMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,TRIVANDRUM vs. DCIT , EXEMPTION CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvishwakarma Dy. Cit (Exemptions) Educational Trust Aayakar Bhavan 14, Ulloor Lane Peroorkada Road, Kowdiar Vs. Dpi Junction, Jagathy Thiruvananthapuram 695003 Trivandurm 695014 [Pan:Aaatv1824D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Parvathy Ammal, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:11.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Dismissal Of It’S Appeal Contesting The Processing Of It’S Return Of Income Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 30.10.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19,By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department (Nfac, Delhi) [Cit(A)] Vide Order Dated 25.7.2022. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Charitable Trust Registered U/S. 12Aa Of The Act, Filed It’S Return Of Income For The Relevant Year On 28.8.2018 Declaring Nil Income, I.E., Claiming Exemption U/S. 11 On The Entirety Of It’S Income. The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1)(A) Of The Act, Denying It The Benefit Of Section 11 Of The Act, I.E., At An Income Of Rs. 13,34,692. The Denial Of Exemption Was For The Reason Of Non-Audit Of It’S Accounts And, Consequently, Non-Filing Of The Audit Report, Required To Be Filed In The Prescribed Form (Form 10B), Along With The Return Of

charitable or religious trust is income by definition (s.2(24)(iia) of the Act). Section 11(1)(d) of the Act is only a part of section 11, and which is, as afore-noted, subject to section 12A(1) of the Act. There is, accordingly, no basis in law to say that section 11(1)(d) income is not subject

KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUTURE DEV CORPORATION(KINFRA),TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 of the 1961 Act as the said Board was not a trust under Public Trust Act and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim registration under section 12A of the 1961 Act. The Department's case was that the Maritime Board was a statutory authority. It was not a trust. Its business was not held under a trust

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION), TRIVANDRUM vs. KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEV.CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

11 of the 1961 Act as the said Board was not a trust under Public Trust Act and, therefore, it was not entitled to claim registration under section 12A of the 1961 Act. The Department's case was that the Maritime Board was a statutory authority. It was not a trust. Its business was not held under a trust

NAUGHTYS PET SANCTUARY,KERALA vs. CIT( EXEMPTION), KOCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

2)(c) of the Act.The Supreme Court in CIT Vs Kamala Town Trust [2005] 279 ITR89 (All) held that section 13 of the Act, carves out an exception tothe general exemption granted under sections 11 and 12 of theAct, to the income derived by a trust / charitable

ASSOCIATION FOR WELFARE OF THE HANDICAPPED,KOZHIKODE vs. THE ITO EXEMPTION WARD, KOZHIKODE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2011-12

Trust,(1976)102 ITR 138(Mad),where it has been observed that the words "In the prescribed manner" in Sec.11(2) do not confer power on the rule making authority to prescribe a time limit in Rule 17. C. Furthermore, the amendment to Sec.11(2) Income Tax Act introduced through the Finance Act, 2015 which led to the addition that

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ST. JOSEPHS PROVINCE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 13 are not applicable to religious charitable trusts. Admittedly, the appellant trust is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Exemption u/s. 11 is subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down u/s. 13(9) of the Act. Moreover, the order passed by the CIT(A) is very cryptic

DCIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. ST JOSEPHS PROVINCE, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

section 13 are not applicable to religious charitable trusts. Admittedly, the appellant trust is a charitable trust registered u/s. 12A of the Act and claimed exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Exemption u/s. 11 is subject to fulfillment of conditions laid down u/s. 13(9) of the Act. Moreover, the order passed by the CIT(A) is very cryptic

MONKOMBU AUNDI IYER EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,IDUKKI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

2. Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust duly registered under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and had been granted approval under section 80G up to the assessment year 2021–22. The assessee sought renewal of approval under section 80G from 01.04.2021 and accordingly filed an application. Provisional approval was granted