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.

465 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka465Delhi463Mumbai372Bangalore180Chennai148Ahmedabad108Jaipur105Pune74Hyderabad73Chandigarh65Kolkata59Lucknow44Cochin34Allahabad31Cuttack31Indore27Visakhapatnam24Calcutta16Amritsar15Agra14Surat13Rajkot13Nagpur12Telangana9Kerala8Raipur7SC7Dehradun6Jodhpur6Varanasi6Rajasthan4Patna4Ranchi4Punjab & Haryana3T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income45Section 2609Section 11(5)2Section 148A2

PASCHIM VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL BIJAGARI vs. THE COMMISSIONER and APPELLATE AUTHORITY

WP/101436/2018HC Karnataka01 Dec 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.101436/2018 (S-Pro) C/W. Writ Petition No.77680/2013 (Gm-Ksr), Writ Petition No.81667/2013 (Gm-R/C) & Writ Petition No.101972/2017 (Gm-R/C)

charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 mentioned in the latter part of the definition clause of Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 by itself will not get the status of “public trust” within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 unless it receives

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/382/2012HC Karnataka18 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 12ASection 13(8)

Showing 1–20 of 465 · Page 1 of 24

...
Section 260
Section 260A
Section 263
Section 80I

trust. It is also argued that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. It is also urged that decision relied upon by the revenue in the case of AMITABH BACHAN supra does not support the case of the revenue as in the aforesaid case, the assessee had withdrawn the claim

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8788/2020HC Karnataka29 Sept 2020

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

SRI SRINIVASA vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/32499/2015HC Karnataka27 Aug 2015

Bench: G.NARENDAR,N.KUMAR

charitable services and in pursuance of the same, the first petitioner has established the second petitioner to provide the quality based medical education. The petitioner institution was even granted affiliation by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, Bengaluru to start the MBBS Course. 4 The Medical Council of India has granted permission on 21.06.2011 to the second petitioner

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17370/2012HC Karnataka02 Jan 2013

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

M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

ITA/595/2016HC Karnataka06 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 11Section 260

10. Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act. 11. The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon

M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

ITA/597/2016HC Karnataka06 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 11Section 260

10. Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act. 11. The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon

M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

ITA/596/2016HC Karnataka06 Sept 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 11Section 260

10. Assessee claims to be a charitable society and obtained certificate under Section 12(A) of the Act. 11. The assessee has received donations and shown it in the Income and Expenditure account. By the impugned order, the ITAT has denied the benefit under Section 11 of the Act. 12. Section 11(1)(d) of the Act relied upon

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

10. The responsibilities of DIAGEO to provide the Working Capital, Raw Materials and to take important commercial decisions about the quality, quantity, price, delivery schedule, etc. as given in para 7.1 with no right to CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY to use the Intellectual Property of DIAGEO are also quoted below for ready reference:- “7. DIAGEO INDIA RESPOSIBILITIES 7.1 DIAGEO INDIA

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

10. The responsibilities of DIAGEO to provide the Working Capital, Raw Materials and to take important commercial decisions about the quality, quantity, price, delivery schedule, etc. as given in para 7.1 with no right to CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY to use the Intellectual Property of DIAGEO are also quoted below for ready reference:- “7. DIAGEO INDIA RESPOSIBILITIES 7.1 DIAGEO INDIA

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

In the result, I pass the following:-

WP/15910/2022HC Karnataka28 Oct 2022

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)

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

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/116/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 145Section 260Section 260A

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/393/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 145Section 260Section 260A

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

WA/538/2020HC Karnataka29 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

Section 17Section 31Section 4

charitable institution or society or trust, other than an institution or society or trust referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 63, capable of holding property; (ii) a company; -: 77 :- (iii) an association or other body of individuals not being a joint family, whether incorporated or not; or (iv) a co-operative society other than a co- operative farm

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

WA/545/2020HC Karnataka29 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

Section 17Section 31Section 4

charitable institution or society or trust, other than an institution or society or trust referred to in sub-section (7) of Section 63, capable of holding property; (ii) a company; -: 77 :- (iii) an association or other body of individuals not being a joint family, whether incorporated or not; or (iv) a co-operative society other than a co- operative farm

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/115/2016HC Karnataka14 Dec 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 145Section 260Section 260A

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

WP/14047/2012HC Karnataka03 Aug 2012

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

Section 156(3)Section 482

charitable trust called “Smt.Lakshmamma B.M.Sreenivasaiah Charities” and the trust was a registered trust and came into existence on 14.12.1995. It was also averred in the complaint that the trust was founded as per the will of late B.S.Narayan, son of late B.M.Sreenivasaiah and as per the trust deed, the complainant and one Sathyanarayana Swamy were appointed as the first

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

The appeal is allowed

ITA/771/2018HC Karnataka12 Feb 2021

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

Section 100

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 MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/53286/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/13065/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT