BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

459 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka459Delhi435Mumbai303Chennai141Bangalore141Jaipur71Ahmedabad69Hyderabad65Chandigarh64Pune51Kolkata38Lucknow38Cochin20Allahabad17Calcutta16Indore15Nagpur15Visakhapatnam14Agra12Cuttack9Patna8Rajkot8Raipur7Amritsar7Surat7Telangana7Varanasi7Kerala5Rajasthan3SC3Panaji2Jabalpur1Andhra Pradesh1Jodhpur1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income48Section 26010Section 114Section 260A2Business Income2Charitable Trust2Exemption2Depreciation2Disallowance

PASCHIM VIBHAG SHIKSHAN MANDAL BIJAGARI vs. THE COMMISSIONER and APPELLATE AUTHORITY

WP/101436/2018HC Karnataka01 Dec 2021

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Suraj Govindaraj Writ Petition No.101436/2018 (S-Pro) C/W. Writ Petition No.77680/2013 (Gm-Ksr), Writ Petition No.81667/2013 (Gm-R/C) & Writ Petition No.101972/2017 (Gm-R/C)

charitable or religious activities cannot be registered under the KSR Act. A Society for promotion of charity could however be registered. 15.17. Chapter IV of the BPT Act provided for registration of a public Trust. In terms of Section 18, a trustee of the public Trust has to apply under the BPT Act for registration of the said : 66 : public

COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE

ITA/312/2016HC Karnataka17 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11Section 12ASection 260

Showing 1–20 of 459 · Page 1 of 23

...
2

section 11 of the Act and the assessee has not been granted such exemption by CBDT vide a special order ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in confirming the order of the CIT directing the assessing authority to allow the claim of assessee for set off of brought forward excess

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SRI KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY

ITA/299/2016HC Karnataka30 Aug 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 11(1)(a)Section 14Section 15Section 260Section 32

68,002/- resulting out of excess application over income without appreciating that the provisions of sections 70 to 80 of IT Act are not applicable to trusts as they only deal with carry forward and set off of loss and not excess expenditure or deficit under section 11(1)(a) of the Act? 3. The learned counsel for Revenue submits

SRI VIDYA MANOHARA TEERTHA SWAMIGALU vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17370/2012HC Karnataka02 Jan 2013

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

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

ITA/467/2015HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

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

ITA/172/2017HC Karnataka25 Sept 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 260

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

M/S SSJV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S ALLAHABAD BANK

In the result, the writ appeals are disposed in

WA/545/2020HC Karnataka29 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

Section 17Section 31Section 4

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

WA/538/2020HC Karnataka29 Jan 2021

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,R. NATARAJ

Section 17Section 31Section 4

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

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. MOOGAMBIGAI

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/1/2017HC Karnataka09 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,ASHOK S.KINAGI

Section 11Section 260Section 260A

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.10.2017 on the following substantial questions

OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

OLR/1/2017HC Karnataka20 Apr 2017

Bench: RAGHVENDRA S.CHAUHAN

Section 11Section 260Section 260A

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.10.2017 on the following substantial questions

THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. INDIA HERITAGE FOUNDATION

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/382/2012HC Karnataka18 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80I

charitable 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

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

WP/14047/2012HC Karnataka03 Aug 2012

Bench: V.JAGANNATHAN

Section 156(3)Section 482

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

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

The appeal is allowed

ITA/771/2018HC Karnataka12 Feb 2021

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

Section 100

68 is also complied with and the evidence of P.W.2 is not disproved. The onus on the defendant No.1 has not been discharged and Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is complied with and the very contention that Section 16(c) has not been complied with cannot be accepted. The evidences of P.W.1 and D.W.1 is important

MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/8788/2020HC Karnataka29 Sept 2020

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

WA/1105/2019HC Karnataka24 Aug 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 4

68. SRI. S.K. RAMAKRISHNA S/O LATE KALE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEAWRS RESIDING AT ALLAPATTANA VILLAGE SRIRANGAPATNA TLAUK (SITE NO.322, SY NO.49) 69. SRI. M. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LAWTE UMA MAHESHWARAPPA 75 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.579, 14TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, B.M. SHRENAGARA, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU 570016 (SITE NO.289, SY NO.49 70. SRI. M.C. VASUDEVA MURTHY S/O LATE M.G. CHKRAPANI

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/25841/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

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

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/14669/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

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

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

WP/37689/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

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

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

WP/16939/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

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

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

WP/53286/2014HC Karnataka12 Jun 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 234E

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