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

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

trust. The breach of Section 13(1)(c) being apparent, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the appeal filed by the revenue. The assessee collecting the capitation fee in the garb of voluntary contribution amounts to commercial activities. Such institutions cannot be considered as charitable institutions within the meaning of Section 2

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable trust i.e., the assessee herein by following its earlier order which has not reached finality 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

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

13 of the Constitution. The reference to Article 31A(I) (b) of the Constitution in the impugned order, therefore, he submitted, is 38 unexceptionable. In support of his contentions he placed reliance upon the Judgments of the Supreme Court to which I would make reference in the latter part of the Judgment. 17.2 Mr. Udaya Holla – learned senior counsel appearing

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

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 of Religious

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

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.” The aforesaid decision

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

The appeals stand dismissed

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

2) of the Act and undertook scrutiny of the payments made to the concerned entities in the light of Section 13(1)(c) read with sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act. 7.1 Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to extract the relevant statutory provisions: "13(1) (c) in the case of a trust

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: S G PANDIT,GEETHA K.B.

13. As seen from the objectives, the appellant trust was formed for the purpose of undertaking charitable activities through education for the empowerment of the underprivileged, poor and women viz vocational training and skill development. A coordinate bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Commissioner of Income Tax - 14 - ITA No.100009 of 2017 (Exemptions) v. Unique Educational

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

13. In CIT v. Trustee of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Religious Endowment Trust (1981) 127 ITR 378, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has accepted the accounts maintained in respect of the trust in conformity with Date of Judgment: 17.07.2018 in ITA Nos.312 & 313 of 2016 Commissioner of Income-tax & another vs. Ohio University Christ College 40/47 the principles

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

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

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

SRI U M RAMESH RAO vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

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

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

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

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S YENEPOYA UNIVERSITY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable trust i.e., the assessee herein by following its earlier order which has not reached finality 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