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. 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

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

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

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

TDS amounting to Rs.1,76,112 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n\n15. 2. The learned Assessing officer has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are applicable in computing the income under section 11 to 13 as per Explanation 3 to section 11 introduced by the Finance Act 2018 w.e.f

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No :Aaajk0398K\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N: 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals\Nare Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together And\Ndisposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025\Nfor The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee\Nhas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N1.

TDS amounting to Rs.1,76,112 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.\n15. 2. The learned Assessing officer has failed to appreciate that the provisions of section\n40(a)(ia) are applicable in computing the income under section 11 to 13 as per Explanation\n3 to section 11 introduced by the Finance Act 2018 w.e.f

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

15,30,436/- to the horse owners without deducting TDS as required under section 194 BB. 2.6Ld.AO called upon assessee

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

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

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

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

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

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

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

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

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

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-17(1), 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

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

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

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

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

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer