THE COMMISSIONER vs. JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE 17(1), BANGALORE. …APPELLANTS (BY MR.SANMATHI E I, ADV.) AND: JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST NO.31, PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD, BANGALORE-4. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) ***** THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

section 61-A of the said Act called upon the swami to appoint a competent manager to manage the affairs of the institution. The petitioner’s case was that the action of the Board was instigated by one Lakshminarayana Rao of Udupi who wanted to have control over the affairs of the Mutt. It appears that in pursuance

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

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Trust registered under 10 the Charitable Endowment Act, 1890 can be treated as Central Government as provided in Sl.No.1 of Table 1 appended to Rule 3(1) of the Rules. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of relevant extract of Section 17(2

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

17(2) Bangalore in Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Bangalore vs. Ohio University Christ College, Academy for Management Education, Bangalore. 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

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

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

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

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 or institution that the activity shall be carried on no profit no loss basis or that profit shall be proscribed. Even if there is no such express provision, the nature of the charitable purpose, the manner in which the activity for advancing the charitable purpose is being carried on and the surrounding circumstances may clearly indicate that the activity

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. KRUPANIDHI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 2(15) i.e., relief of the poor, education and medical relief. Consequently, where the object of trust or institution is, relief to the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute ‘charitable purpose’ even if it incidentally involves in carrying of commercial activities. 17

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

Appeals stand disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 2(15) i.e., relief of the poor, education and medical relief. Consequently, where the object of trust or institution is, relief to the poor, education or medical relief, it will constitute ‘charitable purpose’ even if it incidentally involves in carrying of commercial activities. 17

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

17. Section 2 (15) of the Act reads thus: “”charitable purpose” includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places of objects of artistic or historic interest and the advancement of any other object of general public utility: 18. Section 12A of the Act deals with

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.201/2015 Commissioner

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Charitable Trusts. Sections 14 to 59 governed by Chapter – IV of the Act deals with the income under the five heads of income enumerated under Section 14. The 7 exemption entitlement under Section 11 of the Act is based on application of income and ‘permissible accumulations’ and the ‘balance of income’, if any, is treated as income which

M/S CUTCHI MEMON UNION vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

17(1), BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.08.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.878/BANG/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S CHALASSANI EDUCATION TRUST

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Anr. Vs. M/s.Chalassani

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

section 11 on commercial principles after providing for allowance for normal depreciation and deduction thereof from gross income of the Trust. In view of the aforestated Judgment of the Bombay High Court, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. 4. Question No. 2 herein is identical to the question

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Charitable Trusts. Sections 14 to 59 governed by Chapter – IV of the Act deals with the income under the five heads of income enumerated under Section 14. The exemption entitlement under Section 11 of the Act is based on application of income and ‘permissible accumulations’ and the ‘balance of income’, if any, is treated as income which is not applied