M/S. A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION,MANGALORE vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 10(23C) provides 29. withdrawal of the approval granted in certain situations and the same reads as under:- “Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) is notified by the Central Government or is approved by the prescribed authority, as the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 & TPS , BAGALKOT vs. SHRI PRABHAYYA BASAYYA SARAGANACHANI , BAGALKOT

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri. Prabhayya Basayya Saragachari, At. Muchakhandi Tq & Ward 1 & Tps, Dist. – Bagalkot – 587 102. Bagalkot. Pan : Doips 6443 L Appellant Respondent

section 10(37) of the Act. The assessee in support of its contention placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai v. Income-tax Officer-TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

10. Before CIT(A), the Assessee submitted that the conclusion drawn by the AO are not factually correct. The Assessee submitted that it had not violated the provision of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act of 1984. He drew attention of the CIT(A) to the observations of the AO in the order of assessment wherein the complaint

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY vs. SRI B RUDRA GOWDA , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and the appeal by revenue stands dismissed

section 37 (1) of the Act.” 7.10.10. We note that the CEC, vide its report dated 3-2-2012 and 13- 3-2012 made recommendations with regard to setting up of SPV, transfer of funds collected from all lease holders under various heads, manner of utilisation of said funds etc., to Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is incorporated in Paragraph

B RUDRA GOUDA ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and the appeal by revenue stands dismissed

section 37 (1) of the Act.” 7.10.10. We note that the CEC, vide its report dated 3-2-2012 and 13- 3-2012 made recommendations with regard to setting up of SPV, transfer of funds collected from all lease holders under various heads, manner of utilisation of said funds etc., to Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is incorporated in Paragraph

KANTILAL JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

10,00,000/- and excess portion was Rs, 4,78,000/-. Certain other incomes in the head of IFOS, which were disclosed and reported in the return of income were not included in the Form 26AS, as follows: i) Savings Bank Interest Rs. 14,887/- ii) Other Interest Income Rs. 9,262/- and Rs. 9,845/- from two parties which

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 37(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 31. For the reasons afore stated, we are of the considered view that substantial question law formulated herein is to be answered in the negative i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 10.5.3. In the instant case also, the assessee has contributed funds at the specific request

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 37(1) of the Act and not otherwise. 31. For the reasons afore stated, we are of the considered view that substantial question law formulated herein is to be answered in the negative i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 10.5.3. In the instant case also, the assessee has contributed funds at the specific request

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS under section 194B or section 194 BB of the Act. Consequentially no disallowance could be made under section 40 (a) (ia) of the act in the hands of assessee. Accordingly ground No. 2-4 raised by assessee stands allowed.” 9.2 The facts for year under consideration are identical and nothing contrary has been placed on record by revenue

BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

TDS under section 194B or section 194 BB of the Act. Consequentially no disallowance could be made under section 40 (a) (ia) of the act in the hands of assessee. Accordingly ground No. 2-4 raised by assessee stands allowed.” 9.2 The facts for year under consideration are identical and nothing contrary has been placed on record by revenue

SMT. LAKSHMAMMA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3, SHIVAMOGGA

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri A.K.Garodiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Lakshmamma, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Purdal Road, Ward-3, Gadikoppa, Shivamogga-577 201 Shivamogga-577 205 Pan No: Akkpl 6281 A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent By : K.R.Narayana, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice-This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 26.3.2019 Of The Cit(Appeals), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Facts & Circumstances Under Which This Appeal Arise For 2. Consideration Are That The Assessee Owned Agricultural Lands Measuring 6.8 Acres In Malligenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk Which Was Compulsorily Acquired By The Special Land Acquisition Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Slao”], Under The Provisions Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Vide Notification Dated 22.9.2000. Aggrieved By The Award As Originally Passed Awarding Compensation For The Land Acquired By The Govt., Page 2 Of 12

10(37) of the Act and to that exempt was exempt. The Assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) and further submitted that the provisions of section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act were not applicable for interest on enhanced compensation as interest

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), DHARWAD vs. SHRI VINAYAK HARI PALLED , HUBBALLI

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A.K. Garodia

10(37) of the Act and to that exempt was exempt. The CIT(A) followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam (HUF) (supra) in coming to the above conclusion and further held that the provisions of section 57(iv) r.w.s. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s. 145A(b) of the Act were not applicable

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

TDS held as follows: "The question of law referred to at the instance of the ITIT1114e is as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') paid by the assessee was an expenditure incidental to business and allowed as a deduction from

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-12 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

TDS held as follows: "The question of law referred to at the instance of the ITIT1114e is as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') paid by the assessee was an expenditure incidental to business and allowed as a deduction from

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1980 To 1982/Bang/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

TDS held as follows: "The question of law referred to at the instance of the ITIT1114e is as to whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') paid by the assessee was an expenditure incidental to business and allowed as a deduction from

SRI HIREHAL GAVIAPPA RANGAN GOUD ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Hirehal Gaviappa Rangan Goud, Mine Owner, Hrg Enclaves, Opp. Leelavathi Nilayam, Tilak Nagar, Cantonment, Bellary-583 104 ….Appellant Pan Adwpg 8968L Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bellary. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jcit (D.R)

Section 37(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT (Appeals) on this disputed issue and 10 direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal of the assesse. 7. On the second disputed issue, with respect to the provision for audit fees, the Assessing Officer has disallowed the claim

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed