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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

12A registration is granted in subsequent years only? - 4 - 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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

12A registration is granted in subsequent years only? - 4 - 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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

12A registration is granted in subsequent years only? - 4 - 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

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2), it was submitted that the assessee has not amended the Objects of the institution against the original Objects which were prevailing at the time of granting registration under Section 12A of the Act. What was alleged to have been amended has been considered by the Tribunal comparing the original Trust Deed and the amended Trust Deed. By substituting

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KODAVA SAMAJA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Charitable Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

2) of the Act stand settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 402 ITR 441 (SC) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAJASTHAN AND GUJARATI CHARITABLE FOUNDATION) and the decision of this Court in ITA No.551/2017 decided on 14.08.2018. Insofar as depreciation allowable to a Trust, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. The respondent – assessee is a registered public Charitable Trust under Sec. 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The suggested substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal are quoted herein below for reference : “(1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in deleting faculty teaching charges to Ohio University towards

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2(15) or Section 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

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

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

2(15) or Section 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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. EMBASSY CHARITABLE TRUST

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

trust was formed predominantly for carrying out commercial activities such as construction and development, ignoring that no charitable activities were carried on by it till the date of application for approval under section 12A as well as 80G of the Act? 2

ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY vs. SMT. VRINDA S RAO

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice R. Nataraj

2 herein submitted that respondent No.1 was registered as a charitable Trust and that it had obtained registration under Section 12A

COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. MANIPAL HOTEL & RESTAURANT

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Trust 3/22 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in allowing depreciation claimed by the assessee ignoring the fact that the entire cost of asset has been fully allowed as application of income under Section 12A of IT Act? 2. Whether the tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal preferred

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BOOK ROOM

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

12A(a) of the Act be not cancelled. The Director of Income Tax (Exemption) by an order dated 20.12.2011 inter alia held that though the original registration of the Trust for wholly charitable trust, but the activities of the Trust are not for charitable purposes as per amended provisions of Section 2

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. POORNA PRAJANA VIDYA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

charitable Trust running a Gurukula, Sanskrit College and Vedanta institution which was preceded by execution of a trust deed. The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. 5. The Assessing Authority however denied the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act and treated the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. POORNA PRAJANA VIDYA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

charitable Trust running a Gurukula, Sanskrit College and Vedanta institution which was preceded by execution of a trust deed. The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. 5. The Assessing Authority however denied the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act and treated the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. POORNA PRAJANA VIDYA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

charitable Trust running a Gurukula, Sanskrit College and Vedanta institution which was preceded by execution of a trust deed. The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. 5. The Assessing Authority however denied the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act and treated the assessee

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. POORNA PRAJANA VIDYA

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

charitable Trust running a Gurukula, Sanskrit College and Vedanta institution which was preceded by execution of a trust deed. The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act for the assessment years 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. 5. The Assessing Authority however denied the benefit of exemption under Section 11 of the Act and treated the assessee

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

2) (xiv) /S.35 in respect of the same asset. If that were the correct principle, The assessee should logically be entitled to deduction by way of depreciation for all previous years including those for which allowance have been granted under the provision relating to scientific research. The statute does not permit this. The restriction imposed would, therefore, be illogical