GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

TDS under section 192 of the Act, giving rise to double taxation on the same transaction. 4. Disallowance of corporate social responsibility expenses claimed as deduction under section 80G

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 80G of the Act is not sustainable. Therefore, we hereby set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to recompute the total income by allowing the set off of short-term capital loss as claimed by the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 10. In the result

SRI KRISHNARAJENDRA CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member Sri.Krishnarajendra Charitable The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Trust, Bangalore Bangalore Palace Compound, Vs. Jayamahal Road, Jc Nagar, Bangalure, Karnataka, 560006 Pan : Aabtc808K Appellant Respondent

80G. We also notice that Ld.CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. Thus 5 respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in above mentioned decisions we remand the question of grant of approval under section 80 G (5) (vi) of the Act to Ld.CIT

M/S. JITO BELGAUM CHAPTER,BELAGAVI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019 – 20

80G. We also noticed that Ld. CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in above referred decisions, we remand the question of grant of approval under section

M/S. VIMALALAYA HOSPITAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

section 80G of the IT Act, 1961. We accordingly set aside this issue back to Ld.CIT(A) to consider application filed by assessee dated 16/10/18 in accordance with law. ITA No.1435(B)/2019 3 Accordingly we allow the appeal filed by assessee. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open court

M/S. CHIRANTHANA,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member M/S. Chiranthana The Commissioner Of F-25, 1St Floor, Income Tax (Exemptions) Shriram Sardhana Apartments, Bangalore Behind M.S Ramaiya Residency, Vs. Bangalure, Karnataka, 560006 Pan : Aabtc808K Appellant Respondent

80G. We also noticed that Ld.CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in above referred decisions, we remand the question of grant of approval under section 80 G (5) (vi) of the Act to Ld.CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at the time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a Notification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat) 106] which reads as under:- 58. Income-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f) Notification

SRI. BEVAHALLI GANGAPPA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,,KOLAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

80G deduction of Rs, 1,62,710/- . The AO added Rs.2,00,46,877/- being cash deposits made during the entire financial year in to two Axis Bank accounts held in the names of Deccan Hospital and Deccan Pharma as income under section 69A. Further Rs. 26,61,208/- being other non-cash credits in these two banks were also

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Section\n147 of the Act, he cannot make such disallowances in respect of matters which\nhave reached finality in the original assessment and which arc not in the nature of\nany escapement of income within the meaning of Section 147. The learned Counsel\nfor assessee pointed out that the original assessment was made Under Section\n143(1) and thereafter

SRI DEVRAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(R) ,KOLAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-2(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiita Nos.3307 To 3312(Bang)/2018 (Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2014-15) Shri Devaraj Urs Educational Trust For Backward Classes, Tamaka, Kolar-563 101 Pan No.Aaats5344P Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri Guruprasad, Addl.Cit

80G to the trust were summoned under section131 of the IT Act, 1961 and were examined by AO. Based upon the statements of these employees and also verifying the documents/details filed by assessee was treated to be in default and orders under section 201 (1) and 201(1A) was passed for years under consideration. 3. At the outset

M/S PROMAC ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

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

80G in respect of donations made to the extent of evidences available i.e. for Rs. 3,78,000/-. 4.2. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in adjudicating the aforesaid ground. For the above reasons and for such other reasons which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G subject to 50% of the total contribution. The AR did not dispute the same. As the contribution made is eligible for deduction to the extent of 50% only the disallowance made by the AO is upheld and relevant ground is dismissed.” 11.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. 11.4 The Ld.AR

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

80G of the Act. The assessee trust is engaged in charitable activities, including education and healthcare. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the donation made by the assessee to another trust on the ground that the recipient trust was not registered under section 12A of the Act. As per the provisions of section 11 of the Act, a charitable trust

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

80G of the Act. The assessee trust is engaged in charitable activities, including education and healthcare. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the donation made by the assessee to another trust on the ground that the recipient trust was not registered under section 12A of the Act. As per the provisions of section 11 of the Act, a charitable trust

HASANATH EDUCATION SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

80G(5) of the Act. The assessee is running education institution. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has collected Rs.1,15,63,756 under building fund during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide the details and evidence for the same. The assessee submitted that the amount

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

80G of the Act was not substantiated. IT(TP)A No.1319(B)/2011 10 2.5 Ld.AO observed that assessee entered into international transaction with its associated enterprises, and therefore for determining arms length price of international transaction, case was referred to Ld.TPO. 2.5.1 Ld.TPO upon receipt of reference called for economic analysis of international transaction entered into by assessee

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

80G of the Act was not substantiated. 2.5 Ld.AO observed that assessee entered into international transaction with its associated enterprises, and therefore for determining arms length price of international transaction, case was referred to Ld.TPO. 2.5.1 Ld.TPO upon receipt of reference called for economic analysis of international transaction entered into by assessee. 2.5.2 From documentation so filed, it was observed

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

TDS and its remittances. 15.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. It was prayed by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that this issue may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for submission of the relevant details and examination, verification thereof. The learned Departmental Representative too submitted that

NOVO NORDISK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

TDS deducted and deposited in subsequent year Year end accrual for breakage & expired products 1,89,93,073 Reversal of excess accrual/ provision -50,00,000 Other discount/ rebate/ credit notes issued 2,05,563 3,15,42,300 Amount debited to P&L account 39,68,93,620 11. With regard to sales commission (sl.no.1) above