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

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

charitable institution can neither lead to the conclusion that the activities of the Trust or institution are not genuine, nor can it be said that the activities of the Trust or institution are not being carried out in accordance with the two conditions stipulated under the provisions of Section 12(3) of the Act do not exist, the objectives

SRI AVINASH LALA CHANDANI vs. SRI P A NIRANJAN

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

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 he has deposed that he has paid arrears of income tax to the IT department, no documents are placed on record. Hence, an adverse inference

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ADICHUNCHUNGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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 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

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

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 (supra). 14. In the light of the Act, Rules and the judgments rendered by this Court noticed (supra), the demand of property tax by the respective Panchayats is admittedly on the basis of a circular. The Circular though refers to Section 199 of the Act and the Rules direct that all buildings will have to be imposed property

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

27. The source of income as indicated above is the manufacture and sale of liquor under the Excise Licence, where DIAGEO has no privity or locus. Therefore, whatever income is generated out of the said business has to be first taxed in the hands of the Excise Licencee and after payment of the Income-tax, the ‘distribution of surplus’ between

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

27. The source of income as indicated above is the manufacture and sale of liquor under the Excise Licence, where DIAGEO has no privity or locus. Therefore, whatever income is generated out of the said business has to be first taxed in the hands of the Excise Licencee and after payment of the Income-tax, the ‘distribution of surplus’ between

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

SHRI. JAGANNATH S SHETTY vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

CHARITABLE TRUST AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 1 SCC 287 and brought to notice of this Court Para No.22, wherein an observation is made that in order to decide this question, it would be relevant for us to look into the clauses in the agreement entered into by the parties because they are of utmost importance, while considering time

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

27 :- 38. In a case where there is the want of jurisdiction disclosed on the face of petition that is, when it clearly appears the authority had no jurisdiction with the subject-matter or of the parties, then writ may issue notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy and as already noted, existence of alternative remedy to be a bar must

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

27 :- 38. In a case where there is the want of jurisdiction disclosed on the face of petition that is, when it clearly appears the authority had no jurisdiction with the subject-matter or of the parties, then writ may issue notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy and as already noted, existence of alternative remedy to be a bar must

SRI SRINIVASA vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: G.NARENDAR,N.KUMAR

charitable services and in pursuance of the same, the first petitioner has established the second petitioner to provide the quality based medical education. The petitioner institution was even granted affiliation by the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, Bengaluru to start the MBBS Course. 4 The Medical Council of India has granted permission on 21.06.2011 to the second petitioner