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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

25. In the case of Bhatnagar Educational Trust (supra), in a survey conducted, it was prima facie found that the Trust was not carrying on its activities in accordance with the Objects of the trust, the answers given in the questionnaire by the managers to the trust therein, reflected the extent of misuse of the status enjoyed by the Trust

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

25,983/- under Section 24(a) of the Act on the ground that the income of the trust has to be computed in a commercial manner and not as per the Act. The claim for depreciation was also disallowed. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who by an order dated 27.04.2012, by placing

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

sections, notional deduction by way of depreciation etc. is claimed and such amount of notional deduction remains to be applied for charitable purpose. Therefore, double benefit is claimed by the trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional 25

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

In the result, all the appeals are

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

trusts and institutions under the existing law. The provisions need to be rationalized to ensure that double benefit is not claimed and such notional amount does not excluded from the condition of application of income for charitable purpose”. 23. Paragraphs 7.5, 7.5.1, 7.6 of Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular reported in 371 ITR 22 makes it clear that

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

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

charitable purposes and to manage in its own way all affairs in matters of religion. Rights are also given to such denomination or a section of it to acquire and own movable and immovable properties and to administer such properties in accordance with law. The language of the two clauses (b) and (d) of article 26 would at once bring

PRALAKSHA CHARITABLE TRUST vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Krishna S.Dixit

SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 OR ANY OTHER LAW APPLICABLE. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.ADITYA D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY TRANSPORT SECRETARY, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICERS, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR M, AGA FOR R1; SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

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

25. As already discussed, Sampangi Ramaiah Setty, the adopted son of Pobbathi Krishniah Setty and his son have issued rent receipts for and on behalf of the charitable trust to the respondent No.1 and said receipts have been placed on record. He has specifically admitted that there was arrears of income tax to be payable by the trust. Though

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable trust out of the money when received by him. Once it is held that the amount was received as his professional income, the assessee is clearly liable to pay tax thereon. In our opinion, the correct answer to the question referred to the High Court is that the amount of Rs.32,500 received by the assessee was professional income

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHAMUNDI WINERY AND DISTILLERY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable trust out of the money when received by him. Once it is held that the amount was received as his professional income, the assessee is clearly liable to pay tax thereon. In our opinion, the correct answer to the question referred to the High Court is that the amount of Rs.32,500 received by the assessee was professional income

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

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 taxes

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