THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEM) vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10(23)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal of the revenue on the issue of generation of huge - 4 - surplus without appreciating the material on record?” 3. The assessee - trust is running various institutions offering degree/training in various academic courses in Bangalore and was granted registration under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10(23)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal of the revenue on the issue of generation of huge - 4 - surplus without appreciating the material on record?” 3. The assessee - trust is running various institutions offering degree/training in various academic courses in Bangalore and was granted registration under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA 8 No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI SRI ADICHUNCHUNAGIRI SHIKSHANA TRUST

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

c) of the Act. The question herein revolves around Section 11 of the Act. For the purpose of narrating the facts, we are considering ITA No.62/2010. The assessments for the assessment year 2005-06 were concluded under Section 144 of the Act denying exemption under Section 10(23) of the Act. The addition of income was made on account

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KRUPANIDHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Charitable Institutions, supra, wherein the Division Bench considering Section 13(1)(d) of the Act has held that it is only the income from such investment or deposit which has been made in violation of Section 11(5) of the Act that is liable to be taxed and that the violation under Section 13(1)(d) does not tantamount

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

charitable or religious institution, any income thereof- (1) if such trust or institution has been created or established after the commencement of this Act and under the terms of the trust or the rules governing the institution, any part of such income enures, or (ii) if any part of such income or any property of the trust or the institution

SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

CHARITABLE TRUST AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 1 SCC 287 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.22, wherein an observation is made that in order to decide this question, it would be relevant for us to look into the clauses in the agreement entered into by the parties because they are of utmost importance, while considering time

M/S DESHPANDE EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: S G PANDIT,GEETHA K.B.

charitable purpose’ qua ‘Education’. Albeit, the provision in question in Queen’s Educational Society (supra) was Section 10(23-C) of the Act, it is relevant to produce paragraph 11 of the judgement which assumes significance, which is as under: “11. Thus, the law common to Sections 10(23- C)(iii-ad) and (vi) may be summed up as follows

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Dilip B Bhosale

10 SCC 755. 17.1 On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that Article 26 of the Constitution protects the freedom of every religious denomination to manage its religious affairs. He submitted the matadhipathi manages the properties and assets of a religious institution on behalf of the members of denomination as their representative. As the properties that he manages

AZIM PREMJI TRUSTEE COMPANY PVT LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

charitable entity belonging to the Azim Premji Group, to 4 be held as a part of the corpus of Trust. This gift was contemporaneously disclosed to the stock exchanges and this information was also disseminated to the public at large. This gift was also specifically disclosed in the audited accounts of the petitioner for the year ending 31.03.2014. The face

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.V.Chandrashekara

c) Court means, in respect of area comprised within the limits of the city of Bangalore, Court of Small Causes. It has a very limited jurisdiction and hence, the Court would not be a final authority to adjudicate on issue of title. 14 12. Section 46(1) of Karnataka Rent Act 1999 provides for filing a revision to the High

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

charitable trust with the object of, inter alia, establishing, maintaining and running of a model law college in India. The BCI Trust formed the National Law School of India Society—which was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, comprising members of the Bar and legal academics to establish a leading national institution for legal studies. The Society approached