DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD), KOLAR

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

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

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

M/S. SRI. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

gain of the individuals involved.\nThere is no proof that the trust authorized such collections or payments.\n12.5 The learned AR pointed out that the appellant requested copies of\nstatements of parents and students recorded during the search, but\nthese were not provided on the reason that they were not being used\nagainst the assessee. This indicates that the statements

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

capital gain. Therefore, there can be no protective assessment.” [Para 28] In view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition of Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the absence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also bad in law and needs to be deleted. C. The Third issue

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to\n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

capital gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\n\nC. The Third

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

capital gain. Therefore, there can \nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition \nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the \nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also \nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\n\nC. The Third

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

capital gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

capital gain. Therefore, there can\nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition\nof Rs.95,45,000/- made in the hands of the assessee, in the\nabsence of a substantive addition in the hands of his wife, is also\nbad in law and needs to be deleted.\nC. The Third issue

ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

capital expenditure applied during the year as application of income u/s. 11(1) of the Act as well as accumulation of 15% of income from such property which shall not be included in the total income. On going through the Income & Expenditure A/c for last 3 years reproduced by the ld. CIT(E) we take a note of the fact

ACADEMY OF LIBERAL EDUCATION REGD ,SULLIA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

capital expenditure applied during the year as application of income u/s. 11(1) of the Act as well as accumulation of 15% of income from such property which shall not be included in the total income. On going through the Income & Expenditure A/c for last 3 years reproduced by the ld. CIT(E) we take a note of the fact

DR. T M A PAI FOUNDATION ,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

capital expenditure applied during the year as application of income u/s. 11(1) of the Act as well as accumulation of 15% of income from such property which shall not be included in the total income. On going through the Income & Expenditure A/c for last 3 years reproduced by the ld. CIT(E) we take a note of the fact

CITY HOSPITAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,MANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

capital expenditure applied during the year as application of income u/s. 11(1) of the Act as well as accumulation of 15% of income from such property which shall not be included in the total income. On going through the Income & Expenditure A/c for last 3 years reproduced by the ld. CIT(E) we take a note of the fact

KK FOUNDATION AND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1 , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

section 12A of the Act vide certificate bearing no. DIT(E)BLR/12A/K-815/AABTK1463A/ITO(E)-1/Vol-2008-09 dated 30.06.2008. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring taxable income as NIL on 26.09.2014. K.K. Foundation and Public Charitable Trust, Bangalore Page 3 of 6 2.2 The assessee had, in the return of income declared long term

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

capital so as to advance the loan. Borrowed funds of the assessee have been utilised to lend loans to the public and the rate of interest charged is with a view to generate profit. xv. The ld. A.R. submitted that the learned assessing officer has held that the assessee is engaged in business activity and denied the exemption under section