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

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

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

MR. RAMESH KUMAR,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

2) was issued on\n18/01/2013 and the assessee appeared and submitted various documents.\nAt the time of scrutiny proceedings, the AO verified the books of accounts of\nthe assessee and came to the conclusion that during the F.Y. 2011-12, the\nassessee had entered into a transaction with one Mr. Srinath Hebbar of\nLand Traders for transferring the property situated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS for the above mentioned properties was deducted at\nRs.1,50,000/- that was claimed as tax credit. AO applied Section 50C of the\nAct since there was difference between guidance value of the registered\nproperty and value offered for computation of capital gain. Accordingly AO\nmade addition of Rs.92 lakhs and completed assessment under Section 144 of\nthe

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

2(47) of the Act. The assessee quoted provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to reiterate his contention that the deemed transfer of Schedule A property has taken place on the date of MoU i.e. 08.04.2013. viii. The assessee contends that properties having been exchanged, the consideration for the same has be based Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 15 &16 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because