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 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(15

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(15

THE COMMISSIONER vs. JYOTHY CHARITABLE TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

2. The suggested substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal of Revenue are quoted herein below for ready reference:- “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in Date of Judgment 14-08-2018 I.T.A.No.707/2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & another Vs. Jyothy Charitable Trust 3/22 holding that

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

15. From the language employed in section 27 of the old Act, it cannot be stated that even for taking over the management of the institution upon a report of the Enquiry Committee a show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing is necessary. It needs to be noticed that under 31 different situations and conditions, the requirement of compliance

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 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KODAVA SAMAJA

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 2(15) of the Act, 7 running of Bar/Restaurant, renting out of rooms to its members/guests and letting out choultry on commercial basis are not charitable activities and recorded a perverse finding? ii) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that DIT (exemption) has not recorded its finding with regard to genuineness of the activities of the Trust

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GROUP VOCATIONAL

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

trust is not for charitable purpose as per section 2(15) of the Act but formed only to cater to the needs

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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

15 - Provided that no order under sub-clause (ii) shall be passed unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” Section 12AA (3) of the Act reads thus: “(3) Where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub- section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section

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

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(15

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

Section 5 2(15) of the Act and the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that even though the activities of the Trust are not covered by the main provision but are covered by the proviso, therefore, the activities of the Trust are 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

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

15. Thus, we are of the opinion that in view of the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal that a provision was made to the Ohio University for charitable activity by way of education being imparted in India and the fact of the actual payment made to the Ohio University in the very next year and that

PR.COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S SACKHUMVIT TRUST

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 70 to 79 are also not applicable to the charitable trusts/institutions? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct Date of Judgment 14 -08-2018 I.T.A.No.394/2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions & another Vs. M/s Sackhumvit Trust 4/22 in law dismissing Revenue’s appeal by holding that assessee is entitled

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

Appeal is dismissed

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? Date of Order 21-08-2018 I.T.A.No.852/2017 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central

A H MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna Writ Petition No.16323 Of 2021 (Lb-Res) C/W Writ Petition No.51640 Of 2017 (Lb- Tax) Writ Petition No.19423 Of 2021 (Lb- Tax) Writ Petition No.20385 Of 2021 (Lb- Res) Writ Petition No.21130 Of 2021 (Lb- Tax) In Writ Petition No.16323 Of 2021 Between: 1. Indus Trust Having Its Registered Office At Billapura Cross, Sarjapura, Bengaluru - 562 125 Represented By Its Group Chief Financial Officer Mr V.S.Kumar, S/O Late Rama Rao C., Aged About 59 Years. 2. Indus International School Private Limited (Iispl) Having Its Registered Office At Billapura Cross, Sarjapur, Bengaluru - 562 125 Represented By Its Group Chief Financial Officer, Mr V.S.Kumar

charitable. 8. The next decision relied upon by Sri Shivashankar Bhat is the one reported in The Sole Trustee Lokashikshana Trust v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore [(1976) 1 SCC 254 : AIR 1976 SC 10.]. 9. The Supreme Court was dealing with the interpretation of ‘education’ occurring in Section 2(15

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