THE COMMISSIONER vs. JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2 is answered in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against, the department. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid view taken by the Bombay High Court correctly states the principles of law and there is no need to interfere with the same.” 6. Since the issue regarding claim

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

12. Section 26 provides the circumstances in which the Government can order an enquiry by a Committee of not less than three persons, whereas Section 27 provides that on completion of the enquiry and on the basis of report thereof, the Government can take over the management of the institution or pass such orders as may 28 be deemed

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

2. The assessee claims to be a Trust and re- assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act came to be passed for the assessment year under consideration whereby the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not applied income for charitable purpose as required under Sections 11 and 12

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

2. The assessee claims to be a Trust and re- assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act came to be passed for the assessment year under consideration whereby the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not applied income for charitable purpose as required under Sections 11 and 12

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

2. The assessee claims to be a Trust and re- assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act came to be passed for the assessment year under consideration whereby the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not applied income for charitable purpose as required under Sections 11 and 12

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

2. The assessee claims to be a Trust and re- assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act came to be passed for the assessment year under consideration whereby the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not applied income for charitable purpose as required under Sections 11 and 12

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

2. The assessee claims to be a Trust and re- assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Act came to be passed for the assessment year under consideration whereby the Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not applied income for charitable purpose as required under Sections 11 and 12

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

Bench: ABHAY SHREENIWAS OKA (CJ),S.G.PANDIT

12-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for brevity), filed return of income for the assessment years 2008-2009 declaring a surplus income; and for the assessment year 2009-2010 declaring the taxable income as NIL after accumulating income under Section 11(2) of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) and later

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12 and 13 only application of income during the year is allowable under section 11 of the Act and depreciation being a notional expenditure is not allowable?” 3. This Court in case of ‘Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona’ [2018] 89 taxmann.com 127 [SC] with regard to allowability and Depreciation in the hands

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof.- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable or religious institution, any income thereof- - 9 - (i) if such trust or institution has been created or established after

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

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

12 shall operate so as to exclude from the total income of the previous year of the person in receipt thereof.- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) in the case of a trust for charitable or religious purposes or a charitable or religious institution, any income thereof- - 9 - (i) if such trust or institution has been created or established after

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

Trust, Royal Cottage, Royal Palace, Bengaluru – 560 052. Represented by its Secretary K. Shyamaraju, Aged about 65 years. …Petitioner (By:Sri V.Krishna Murthy, Advocate) 17 AND: 1. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India,4th Floor, ‘A’ Wing Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001. 2. The Union of India

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 institution can neither lead to the conclusion that the activities of the Trust or institution are not genuine, nor can it be said that the activities of the Trust or institution are not being carried out in accordance with the two conditions stipulated under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act do not exist, the objectives

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: S G PANDIT,GEETHA K.B.

trust under Section 12AA of the Act engaged in the activity of running coaching classes and training programmes for skill development and vocational training to students by charging fees. The appellant filed the return of income for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 declaring nil income on 26.07.2011 and 26.09.2012, respectively. The case of the appellant

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

12. The depreciation if it is not allowed as necessary deduction for computing the income from the charitable institutions, then there is no way to preserve the corpus of the trust for deriving the income. The Board also appears to have understood the `income’ under section 11(1) in its commercial sense. The relevant portion of the Circular No.5XX-

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable trust i.e., the assessee herein by following its earlier order even when the normal computation of income under respective heads as envisaged under Section 15 to 59 are not applicable to the computation of income in respect of Trusts as per Section 11, 12 and 13? 2

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable trust i.e., the assessee herein by following its earlier order even when the normal computation of income under respective heads as envisaged under Sections 15 to 59 are not applicable to the computation of income in respect of Trusts as per Sections 11, 12 and 13? 2