M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

capitation fees in cash under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned Pr.CIT, Bangalore ought to have appreciated that there the notation "C.PD" found in certain documents during the course of search denoted "concession provided" and not "cash paid" under the facts and 'in the circumstances of the appellant's case. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

gains from business and the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the said disallowance on the facts and circumstances of the case. 31. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the re-computation of depreciation by the learned Assessing Officer treating the revenue expenditure of Rs.278,78,43,000/- as capital expenditure and thereby allowing 10% of depreciation

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS RANGE , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

gains from business and the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the said disallowance on the facts and circumstances of the case. 31. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the re-computation of depreciation by the learned Assessing Officer treating the revenue expenditure of Rs.278,78,43,000/- as capital expenditure and thereby allowing 10% of depreciation

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

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

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

gain and profit thereon, with the inevitable control and direction vis-à-vis such activity of business. Profit motive is surely the essence of trade, commerce or business and therefore in situations and circumstances in which services are rendered without a profit motive, such rendering of service will not have anything in common with trade or commerce or business

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

SRI. VIDYARANYA SEVA SANGHA,UGANAKERI vs. CIT, HUBLI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee trust is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raosri Vidyaranya Seva Sangha, Rs No.25/1, Near Mishrikoti Cross, Kadanakoppa, Karwar Road, Uganakeri-581 198. Tq.Kalkhatgi … Appellant Pan: Aaajs 4355 C Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubli. … Respondent

capital gains arising on acquisition of land by the Government of Karnataka. All these go to show that the assessee has been dormant and no activities were pursued. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT was justified in invoking provisions of sub-section (3) of sec.12AA of Page 8 of 11 the Act to cancel registration granted

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

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

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