Ita/108/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions) v. Shri Kshatriya Ghanchi Samaj Sanghatana
High Court
01 Jul 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · karnataka_bng_old
Parties
Ita/108/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions) v. Shri Kshatriya Ghanchi Samaj Sanghatana
Date of order
01 Jul 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/108/2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions) v. Shri Kshatriya Ghanchi Samaj Sanghatana, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
1
IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATEBD THIS THE DAY OF JULY, 2010.
PRESENT
THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SRBBNIVASKH GOWDA
ITA NO.108/2016
BETWERE
THR COMMISSIONBR OF |INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)MANGALORE. _. APPELLANT
(By SRI. E. I. SANMATHI, ADV.)
AND:
SHRI. KSHATRIYA GHANCHLSAMAJ SANGHATANA,BHATI HOUSE,#2212/B, KODIBAG KARWAR,UTTARKANNADA —- 581 3038PAN NO:AAMTS7180OD.
... RESPONDENT
(NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN R/O RESPONDENT),
2
THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SEKC.260-A OF [INCOMTAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED)10/06/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.100/PNJ/2014 PRAYINGTO DECIDE THE FOREGOING QUESTION OF LAW AND/OR|SUCH|OTHERQUESTIONS.OF|LAWASMAYBE.FORMULATED BY THR HON’BLE COURT AS DEBMBED FITANDSETASIDETHE.APPBRLLATEORDERDATED10.06.2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI,AS SOUGHT FOR, IN THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE’S|CASE, IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO.100/PNJ/2014& GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS DEEMED FIT, IN THE)INTRBREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,JAYANT PATEL J.,PASSHBTHE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
sri. E.I. Sanmathi, learned counsel for theappellant-Revenue states that the matter is covered bythe decision of this Court in the case of Meenaksh]|Amma Endowment Trust in ITA No.192/2010 dated10.11.2010..
oD Under the circumstances, we do not findthat any substantial questions of law would arise.
�
�94;9��679�@19>946�3@@938�2>�:2>52>>9:���
���%,�
�����������
������������
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.