THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section in the same or any other previous year.” 22. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the 23 depreciation deduction in computing the income of Charitable Trust

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section in the same or any other previous year.” 22. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the 23 depreciation deduction in computing the income of Charitable Trust

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section in the same or any other previous year.” 22. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the 23 depreciation deduction in computing the income of Charitable Trust

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA REDDY JANASANGHA

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section in the same or any other previous year.” 22. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the 23 depreciation deduction in computing the income of Charitable Trust

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS vs. AL-AMEEN CHARITABLE FUND TRUST

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section in the same or any other previous year.” 22. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the 23 depreciation deduction in computing the income of Charitable Trust

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section in the same or any other previous year.” 22. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the 23 depreciation deduction in computing the income of Charitable Trust

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GOKULA EDUCATION FOUNDATION (MEDICAL)

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

section in the same or any other previous year.” 22. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the 23 depreciation deduction in computing the income of Charitable Trust

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

section in the same or any other previous year.” 22. The plain language of the amendment establishes the intent of the legislature in denying the depreciation deduction in computing the income of Charitable Trust

SRI DAYARAM DAS vs. INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY

Charitable Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BPT Act’, for brevity). The registered office of the said petitioner is said to be at Mumbai. The first petitioner is said to be a member of the governing body of petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.2 is said to have its activities through

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

SAVIKRUTHA CHARITABLE TRUST (R) vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice H.G.Ramesh Writ Petition No.65306 Of 2009 (T-It)

charitable purposes but only any attempt to create a perpetuity in favour of the settlor’s descendent the trust is void. (Reliance is placed on Shri Takurji Vs Sukdev Sing 1920, 42 All 494). Therefore, the assessee is imparting the education on the lines of business and no purpose of charity is being served. The assessee is having good profit

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

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. D.R. RANKA CHARITABLE TRUST

Appeal is disposed off accordingly

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Trust had not carried out charitable activities during the financial years 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007- 2008 except for a negligible amount of donations made to other persons. Therefore, the application for renewal of recognition under Section 80-G was rejected. The same was challenged before the Tribunal by the assessee. The Tribunal by its order dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S A S KUPPARAJU BROTHERS

Bench: B.MANOHAR,K.SREEDHAR RAO

Charitable Foundation Trust. The above appeals are pertaining to the assessment years 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2001-2002. The Assessing Officer did not give the benefit of Sections 10(22

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. VENKATESHA EDUCATION SOCIETY

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

22) of the act w.e.f. 1-4-1999 by the Finance Act No.2/1998. The assessee has made efforts to retain the benefit of exemption in respect of its income under the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the act and for such purpose, it had made an application under Section

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.V.Chandrashekara

22. During the course of cross examination PW- 1, he has specifically deposed that Kamalakshamma died first and Krishniah Setty died later. He has admitted the suggestion put to him as true that Pobbathi Krishniah Setty had formed the charitable trust namely Pobbathi Krishniah Setty and Kamalakshamma Charities Trust and the said Krishniah Setty was a wealthy

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 TRUST v. THE SAMANDUR 21 GRAMA PRANCHAYAT AND ANOTHER2 interpreting exemption under Rule 6(c) of the Rules has held as follows: “5. Indisputably, Sec. 199 of the Act controls the levy of taxes, rate etc., by Grama Panchayats. sub.Sec. (1) states that the manner and subject to such exemptions, as may be prescribed, the Grama Panchayat could levy

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (4) vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

22. Having heard the learned counsels at length and having given our earnest consideration to the rival contentions, the material placed on record and case laws, we find ourselves unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Assessee and we are of the considered opinion that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as well