DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

12A of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2(iii) is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹39,99,359.00 by treating certain expenses as not allowable as an application of income. 9.1 During the assessment proceedings

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

12A of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2(iii) is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹39,99,359.00 by treating certain expenses as not allowable as an application of income. 9.1 During the assessment proceedings

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out . The Learned DR further submitted that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.1,55,16,,000/- which is also not substantiated. 26. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and Order of the authorities below, we noted that

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out. The Learned DR further submitted that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.1,55,16,000/- which is also not substantiated. 26. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record and Order of the authorities below, we noted that

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out by her. The learned DR has also filed a letter received from Income Tax Officer (Inv. Unit – 3), Bangalore, dated 15.06.2017 which is placed on record.Learned DR further submitted that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.50,00,000/- which is also

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out by her. The learned DR has also filed a letter received from Income Tax Officer (Inv. Unit – 3), Bangalore, dated 15.06.2017 which is placed on record.Learned DR further submitted that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.50,00,000/- which is also

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out by her. The learned DR has also filed a letter received from Income Tax Officer (Inv. Unit – 3), Bangalore, dated 15.06.2017 which is placed on record.Learned DR further submitted that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs.50,00,000/- which is also

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

TDS on such interest payment. Assessee was also unable to establish the nature of business carried out by her. From computation of income, the assessee has shown salary income from Xentrix Studio Pvt. Ltd., and the entire cash deposits have been shown as other income of the assessee and the assessee has claimed ITA Nos.1656 to 1658/Bang/2024 Page

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

12A(a) by the CIT Karnataka vide Order in ACCTS/718/10A/VOL.A-II/K-528 w.e.f. 20.08.1992. 4. The assessee claimed the benefits of exemption under Sec.11 of the Act on the ground that it was existing for charitable purpose as defined in Sec.2(15) of the Act. Section 2(15) of the Act has been amended by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 (i.e., w.e.f

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

12A(a) by the CIT Karnataka vide Order in ACCTS/718/10A/VOL.A-II/K-528 w.e.f. 20.08.1992. 4. The assessee claimed the benefits of exemption under Sec.11 of the Act on the ground that it was existing for charitable purpose as defined in Sec.2(15) of the Act. Section 2(15) of the Act has been amended by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 (i.e., w.e.f

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

12A(a) by the CIT Karnataka vide Order in ACCTS/718/10A/VOL.A-II/K-528 w.e.f. 20.08.1992. 4. The assessee claimed the benefits of exemption under Sec.11 of the Act on the ground that it was existing for charitable purpose as defined in Sec.2(15) of the Act. Section 2(15) of the Act has been amended by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 (i.e., w.e.f

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

12A(a) by the CIT Karnataka vide Order in ACCTS/718/10A/VOL.A-II/K-528 w.e.f. 20.08.1992. 4. The assessee claimed the benefits of exemption under Sec.11 of the Act on the ground that it was existing for charitable purpose as defined in Sec.2(15) of the Act. Section 2(15) of the Act has been amended by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2009 (i.e., w.e.f