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

47)(v) of the I.T. Act.\n3. The assessee during the survey on oath has given a statement, that\nthe possession of land has been transferred during the F.Y. 2011-12,\nwhich was also vouched by the said Mr. Srinath Hebbar by giving a\nstatement on oath that the construction has already been started.\n4. Assessee had known the facts

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

v. The assessee contends by mentioning sub-clause 1 of clause 2 of the JDA that the possession had been taken by the Developer as on the date of the JDA i.e. 01.03.2013. vi. The assessee contends that he subsequently negotiated with the developer and on mutual agreement; they modified the contract i.e. the JDA. The Developer owned property named

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

2 (47) (v) as held by Hon' ble Bombay High ITA Nos. 264 to 271/Bang/2017 & C.O. Nos. 66 to 69/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 24 Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v . CIT [2003] 2601TR 491/129 Taxman 497 . 3. Ld, CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the impugned MOU is a combination of both Agreement

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

2 (47) (v) as held by Hon' ble Bombay High ITA Nos. 264 to 271/Bang/2017 & C.O. Nos. 66 to 69/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 24 Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v . CIT [2003] 2601TR 491/129 Taxman 497 . 3. Ld, CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the impugned MOU is a combination of both Agreement

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

2 (47) (v) as held by Hon' ble Bombay High ITA Nos. 264 to 271/Bang/2017 & C.O. Nos. 66 to 69/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 24 Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v . CIT [2003] 2601TR 491/129 Taxman 497 . 3. Ld, CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the impugned MOU is a combination of both Agreement

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

2 (47) (v) as held by Hon' ble Bombay High ITA Nos. 264 to 271/Bang/2017 & C.O. Nos. 66 to 69/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 24 Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v . CIT [2003] 2601TR 491/129 Taxman 497 . 3. Ld, CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the impugned MOU is a combination of both Agreement

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

2 (47) (v) as held by Hon' ble Bombay High ITA Nos. 264 to 271/Bang/2017 & C.O. Nos. 66 to 69/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 24 Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v . CIT [2003] 2601TR 491/129 Taxman 497 . 3. Ld, CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the impugned MOU is a combination of both Agreement

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

2 (47) (v) as held by Hon' ble Bombay High ITA Nos. 264 to 271/Bang/2017 & C.O. Nos. 66 to 69/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 24 Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v . CIT [2003] 2601TR 491/129 Taxman 497 . 3. Ld, CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the impugned MOU is a combination of both Agreement

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

2 (47) (v) as held by Hon' ble Bombay High ITA Nos. 264 to 271/Bang/2017 & C.O. Nos. 66 to 69/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 24 Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v . CIT [2003] 2601TR 491/129 Taxman 497 . 3. Ld, CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the impugned MOU is a combination of both Agreement

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

2 (47) (v) as held by Hon' ble Bombay High ITA Nos. 264 to 271/Bang/2017 & C.O. Nos. 66 to 69/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 24 Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarakadas Kapadia v . CIT [2003] 2601TR 491/129 Taxman 497 . 3. Ld, CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the impugned MOU is a combination of both Agreement

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

47)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made\nby the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is not sustainable and\ndeserves to be deleted. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is\nhereby allowed.\n16.13 As the main argument of assessee is allowed, we do not find\nnecessary to adjudicate alternate grounds of appeal. Hence

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

47)(v) of the Act. Therefore, the addition made\nby the AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is not sustainable and\ndeserves to be deleted. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is\nhereby allowed.\n\n16.13 As the main argument of assessee is allowed, we do not find\nnecessary to adjudicate alternate grounds of appeal. Hence

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. 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. 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

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