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

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

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. 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

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

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

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1 , MANGALURU vs. M/S MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH KANARA , MANIPAL

In the result, the appeals of the revenue for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 are partly allowed and the appeal relating to AY 2009-10 is allowed

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

12A of the Act as well as u/s 10(23C)(via) of the Act. The returns of income filed for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 were processed u/s ITA No.160, 161 & 737 /Bang/2018 Page 2 of 10 143(1) of the Act. The assessment for assessment year 2010-11 was completed

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

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARI vs. M/S. NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

12A of the I.T. Act and the A.O has also made the addition of donations of Rs. 12,49,08,600 received, but not accounted in its books, u/s 11 of the Act as undisclosed receipts (Para 21/Page 12 of the impugned order of the AO). The failure on the part of Ld. CIT(A) to consider this fact renders

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,BANGALORE vs. M/S. VOKKALIGARA SANGHA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle-1, Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Vokkaligara Sangha, Kr Road, Vv Puram, Bengaluru-560004. … Respondent Pan: Aaatv 3662 K Appellant By : Shri S.Nambirajan, Addl.Cit(Dr) Respondent By : S/Shri L.Bharath & Vishal Dedhia, Ca

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] with the object of rendering services in education. Return of income for the assessment year was filed declaring nil income. After processing the return of income under the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act at total