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 of the Act 4.1 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing an amount of INR 2,81 ,50,000 claimed as deduction

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

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,00,461)\nD. Interest Income\nRs. 1,16,275/-\nTotal (A+B+C+D)\nRs. 68,81,000/-\n4.2 Further, the assessee against the taxable income at normal slab\nrate of Rs. 68,81,000/- claimed deduction under section 80G of the Act\nfor Rs. 68,81,000/- only. Hence, the assessee declared total income

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

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

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

5 of 16 7. However, the learned CIT(A) examined the facts of the case, the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act, and the submissions of the appellant. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had earned long term capital gains taxable

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 80 G (5

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

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

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

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

5) does not exceed fifty lakh rupees, the requirement under sub-section (1) for constitution of the Corporate Social Responsibility Committee shall not be applicable and the functions of such Committee provided under this section shall, in such cases, be discharged by the Board of Directors of such company.] 14. Schedule VII to the Companies Act, 2013 is extracted hereunder

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS-III [2010 190 TAXMAN 396 (MAD.) 3. Raghubar Automobile & General Finance (P) Ltd. v/s. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 520 (Allahabad) / [2013] 218 Taxman 39 (Allahabad) (MAG.) 4. Sreenivas Charitable Trust v/s. DCIT [2006] 154 TAXMAN 377 (MAD.) 4. The ld. DR, however, opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that assessee has been negligent and the delay

ANJANA PATEL SEVA SANGHA vs. CIT,

In the result, ITA No.1615/B/13 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

TDS-III [2010 190 TAXMAN 396 (MAD.) 3. Raghubar Automobile & General Finance (P) Ltd. v/s. CIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 520 (Allahabad) / [2013] 218 Taxman 39 (Allahabad) (MAG.) 4. Sreenivas Charitable Trust v/s. DCIT [2006] 154 TAXMAN 377 (MAD.) 4. The ld. DR, however, opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submitted that assessee has been negligent and the delay

SHRIMATHI RANGAMMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiita Nos.943 & 944(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Years : 2018-19) Shrimathi Rangamma Educational Trust, No.638, I Main Road, K R Puram, New Extension, Bangalore -560 036 Pan No.Aarts1783M Appellant Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Exemptions), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri Suraj S Singri, Ca Revenue By : Dr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit

section 80G(5)(vi)12AA(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, passed by Ld. CIT (E), Bangalore. 2. Ld.AR submitted that assessee is a public charitable trust and has set up a school in Theranya village of Hassan District of Karnataka, which is an underdeveloped village. He submitted that school is functional from June 2017, providing educational facility to children

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

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

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

TDS has not been deducted on the software expenses. Pursuant to the same, a rectification application u/s. 154 was filed by the taxpayer, as the AO/TPO had not complied with DRP directions in relation to recomputing the ALP. Aggrieved by the order of the LdAO, assessee is in appeal before us. Ground No.1-2 are general in nature. Therefore

BIOCON LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

TDS has not been deducted on the software expenses. Pursuant to the same, a rectification application u/s. 154 was filed by the taxpayer, as the AO/TPO had not complied with DRP directions in relation to recomputing the ALP. Aggrieved by the order of the LdAO, assessee is in appeal before us. Ground No.1-2 are general in nature. Therefore

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