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

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

65 YEARS. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI S.BASAVARAJ, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI GAUTHAM A.R., (PHYSICAL HEARING)) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT YELAHANKA HOBLI YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURU - 560 064 5 BY ITS PRESIDENT. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable purpose. The levy as also the payment was by reason of the regulatory power vested in the assessee-club to regulate racing in accordance with the rules framed by it, non-compliance with which would result in the jockeys, trainers and others being excluded from participating in racing. The levy had direct nexus with their activity as participants

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

charitable purpose. The levy as also the payment was by reason of the regulatory power vested in the assessee-club to regulate racing in accordance with the rules framed by it, non-compliance with which would result in the jockeys, trainers and others being excluded from participating in racing. The levy had direct nexus with their activity as participants

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THE BAGALKOT TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: S.ABDUL NAZEER,P.S.DINESH KUMAR

Trust and not having submitted Form No.10 and not having applied 85% of income towards Charitable & Religious purposes is entitled for exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). At the outset, he adverted to the provisions 5 of Section 11 and Rule 17 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’ for short) and contended

SRI NARAYANA GURU PRASADITHA SANGHA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,VINEET SARAN

65 YEARS S/O SRI. BASAPPA MAJARI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. JINEETHA CHATRJEE FOR SRI. S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, ROOM NO.1 CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE-575 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI E.I. SANMATHI AND SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATES) 2 THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS

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

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

charitable trust w.e.f. 1.4.2003 as per Annexure-D dated 27.7.2009. 14. The material on record clearly depicts that in view of pendency of the proceedings stated supra, the Assessing Authority passed an order on 24.3.2006 raising a demand. That was the subject matter of the revision before the Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties by an order dated

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

charitable trust w.e.f. 1.4.2003 as per Annexure-D dated 27.7.2009. 14. The material on record clearly depicts that in view of pendency of the proceedings stated supra, the Assessing Authority passed an order on 24.3.2006 raising a demand. That was the subject matter of the revision before the Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties by an order dated

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

charitable trust w.e.f. 1.4.2003 as per Annexure-D dated 27.7.2009. 14. The material on record clearly depicts that in view of pendency of the proceedings stated supra, the Assessing Authority passed an order on 24.3.2006 raising a demand. That was the subject matter of the revision before the Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties by an order dated

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

charitable trust w.e.f. 1.4.2003 as per Annexure-D dated 27.7.2009. 14. The material on record clearly depicts that in view of pendency of the proceedings stated supra, the Assessing Authority passed an order on 24.3.2006 raising a demand. That was the subject matter of the revision before the Commissioner, who after hearing both the parties by an order dated

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

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 TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK 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

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI 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