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

trust property for the benefit of the beneficiary which the Trustee can do, cannot be regarded as a right to property under Art. 19 (1)(f) and for the same reason, it does not constitute property under Art. 31(2). If it is held that the Tilkayat was no more than a Custodian, Manager and Trustee properly so called, there

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

2. Heard Sri. S.Ganesh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned counsel for the respondents – revenue. 3. Briefly stated the contentions urged by the petitioner are as under:- The Petitioner is a Private Limited Company and the trustee of a private discretionary Trust called ‘Pioneer Independent Trust’ (for short ‘the Trust’), of which the only two beneficiaries

THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. THE KARNATAKA STATE

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

Trust and accumulation of income under Section 11(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

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

Charitable Trust derived from building, plant and machinery and furniture was liable to be computed in normal commercial manner although the Trust may not be carrying on any business and the assets in respect whereof depreciation is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases, section 32 of the Income Tax Act providing for depreciation for computation

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

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: S G PANDIT,GEETHA K.B.

Section 2(15) of the Act reads as follows: “(15) "charitable purpose" includes relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preservation of monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest, and the - 8 - ITA No.100009 of 2017 advancement of any other object of general public utility: Provided that

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

trust, and that the purposes as well as objects, are both charitable. Merely because more than one purpose has been specified and details about the plan of such expenditure has not been given, the same would not, in our view, be sufficient to deny the benefit under Section 11(2

THE COMMISSIONER OF 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

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

ADARSHA SUGAMA SANGEETHA ACADEMY vs. SMT. VRINDA S RAO

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

Section 92(1) of the CPC. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said Order, the present writ petition is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 / petitioners herein submitted that the respondent No.1 was not a public charitable Trust

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 Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX' (2020) 114 Taxmann.com 693 (SC). 6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The Act provides for exemption of income of charitable institutions under Section 11 of the Act. Section 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Charitable Trust derived from building, plant and machinery and furniture was liable to be computed in normal commercial manner although the Trust may not be carrying on any business and the assets in respect whereof depreciation is claimed may not be business assets. In all such cases, section 32 of the Income Tax Act providing for depreciation for computation