M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

section 11 not on the basis of the nature of contributions but for the reason that the contributions were applied for charitable purposes. When the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contribution in the nature of income, which is the best situation that 13 the Revenue would always welcome, what is the relevance of arguing whether

M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

section 11 not on the basis of the nature of contributions but for the reason that the contributions were applied for charitable purposes. When the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contribution in the nature of income, which is the best situation that 13 the Revenue would always welcome, what is the relevance of arguing whether

M/S KAMMAVARI SANGHAM vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed; and

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

section 11 not on the basis of the nature of contributions but for the reason that the contributions were applied for charitable purposes. When the assessee- trust itself has treated the contributions as voluntary contribution in the nature of income, which is the best situation that 13 the Revenue would always welcome, what is the relevance of arguing whether

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

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 29 of the Act, but is merely an ‘application of income’ or the compensation paid by the Assessee to the DIAGEO in terms of the Agreement dated 30/10/2007. 33. The two Appellate Authorities therefore clearly fell in error in not correctly, fully and comprehensively appreciating the legal effect of the peculiar nature of business under the State control

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 29 of the Act, but is merely an ‘application of income’ or the compensation paid by the Assessee to the DIAGEO in terms of the Agreement dated 30/10/2007. 33. The two Appellate Authorities therefore clearly fell in error in not correctly, fully and comprehensively appreciating the legal effect of the peculiar nature of business under the State control

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

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

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

trust. It is also argued that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed under Section 263 of the Act. It is also urged that decision relied upon by the revenue in the case of AMITABH BACHAN supra does not support the case of the revenue as in the aforesaid case, the assessee had withdrawn the claim

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

SRI B V ACHARYA S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA ACHARYA vs. SRI N VENKATESHAIAH

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

charitable trust called “Smt.Lakshmamma B.M.Sreenivasaiah Charities” and the trust was a registered trust and came into existence on 14.12.1995. It was also averred in the complaint that the trust was founded as per the will of late B.S.Narayan, son of late B.M.Sreenivasaiah and as per the trust deed, the complainant and one Sathyanarayana Swamy were appointed as the first

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,RAVI V HOSMANI

charitable trust with the object of, inter alia, establishing, maintaining and running of a model law college in India. The BCI Trust formed the National Law School of India Society—which was registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, comprising members of the Bar and legal academics to establish a leading national institution for legal studies. The Society approached

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT(A) vs. M/S SOUTH CANARA DISTRICT

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Charitable Trust with a description NGVCT Animator salary as per the directions of their controlling authority i.e., NABARD. Under the provisions of the Act, no exception could be allowed unless the same has been incurred by the assessee for earning taxable income and it should be in the nature of revenue. Having observed so, denied the exception claimed

SMT. S. JALAJA vs. UNION OF INDIA

In the result, writ appeals are allowed

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU', (2018) LAWS (MAD)3 918. It is further submitted that right to property has been recognized by Article 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the year 1948 itself which was diluted by the Parliament by inserting Article 31A in the Constitution. It is further submitted that right to hold property

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

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

CHARITABLE FUND TRUST NO.3, MILLER TANK BUND ROAD CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE -560052 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI MOHAMMED ALI KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR KHAN, AGED: 37 YEARS. 19. ROOPASHRI SHANKAR CHINDALUR W/O C G SHIVASHANKAR, AGED: 34 YEARS, 105, SATHYASHREE, SERPENTINE ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE -560020. 20. P. CHAKRAVARTHY S/O PERUMAL, AGED: 43 YEARS NO.38, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT