M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

B by the appellant. The provision of section 12A(1) (ba) were introduced with effect from 1/4/2018 and therefore for the impugned assessment year., the ld CIT E could not have cancelled the registration u/s 12 A of the Truste by invoking Provision of section 12 AA (4) of the Act. Further mere delay in filing the return of income

M/S. ADARSH VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital\nexpenditure which otherwise is not an allowable expenditure would\nbe considered as application in the event of an assessee trust\nenjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances,\nthe law that should apply is with reference to the year of default. He\nsubmitted that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) should\nhave acted

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

1, Bengaluru, in \nF.No.Pr.CIT/BLR-1/90/Centralization/2016-17 dated 01.08.2016. A \nnotice dated 21.11.2016 under section 153A of the Act was issued and \nserved on the assessee. In response, assessee filed return of income on \n24.12.2016 admitting the same income as stated in the original return \nfiled under section 139 of the Act. Thereafter, other statutory notices \nwere issued to the assessee. During

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

1, Bengaluru, in\nF.No.Pr.CIT/BLR-1/90/Centralization/2016-17 dated 01.08.2016. A\nnotice dated 21.11.2016 under section 153A of the Act was issued and\nserved on the assessee. In response, assessee filed return of income on\n24.12.2016 admitting the same income as stated in the original return\nfiled under section 139 of the Act. Thereafter, other statutory notices\nwere issued to the assessee. During

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

12A of the Wealth Tax Act. iii. The CIT(A) also consequently failed to appreciate that any valuation adopted for the purposes of assessment has to be solely based on such a report. Consequently, additions which are made not based on a valid report are liable to be deleted on the facts and circumstances of ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024

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

1, Bengaluru, in\nF.No.Pr.CIT/BLR-1/90/Centralization/2016-17 dated 01.08.2016. A\nnotice dated 21.11.2016 under section 153A of the Act was issued and\nserved on the assessee. In response, assessee filed return of income on\n24.12.2016 admitting the same income as stated in the original return\nfiled under section 139 of the Act. Thereafter, other statutory notices\nwere issued to the assessee. During

M/S. ADARSH VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

capital expenditure which otherwise is not an allowable expenditure would be considered as application in the event of an assessee trust enjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances, the law that should apply is with reference to the year of default. He submitted that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) should have acted

M/S. AMALA JYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

capital expenditure which otherwise is not an allowable expenditure would be considered as application in the event of an assessee trust enjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances, the law that should apply is with reference to the year of default. He submitted that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) should have acted

M/S. AMALA JYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital\nexpenditure which otherwise is not an allowable expenditure would\nbe considered as application in the event of an assessee trust\nenjoying the benefits of the registration. Under the circumstances,\nthe law that should apply is with reference to the year of default. He\nsubmitted that the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) should\nhave acted

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

1, Bengaluru, in \nF.No.Pr.CIT/BLR-1/90/Centralization/2016-17 dated 01.08.2016. A \nnotice dated 21.11.2016 under section 153A of the Act was issued and \nserved on the assessee. In response, assessee filed return of income on \n24.12.2016 admitting the same income as stated in the original return \nfiled under section 139 of the Act. Thereafter, other statutory notices \nwere issued to the assessee. During

M/S. SRI. SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2021-22

capitation fee received in cash but not recorded in the books of accounts. 11. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted its reply. However, the learned PCIT found that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims with documentary evidence. After considering the assessee’s reply, the materials seized during the search, and the statements of various individuals

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

b) of section 132(1) of the Act. Loose sheets and note pads are not\nbooks of accounts and therefore could not have been seized under this\nprovision of the Act.\n12.2 He referred to section 292C of the Act, explaining that its\npresumption applies only to books of accounts, other documents, or\nvaluable articles, but does

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

b) of section 132(1) of the Act. Loose sheets and note pads are not\nbooks of accounts and therefore could not have been seized under this\nprovision of the Act.\n12.2 He referred to section 292C of the Act, explaining that its\npresumption applies only to books of accounts, other documents, or\nvaluable articles, but does

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

b) of section 132(1) of the Act. Loose sheets and note pads are not\nbooks of accounts and therefore could not have been seized under this\nprovision of the Act.\n12.2 He referred to section 292C of the Act, explaining that its\npresumption applies only to books of accounts, other documents, or\nvaluable articles, but does

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

b) of section 132(1) of the Act. Loose sheets and note pads are not\nbooks of accounts and therefore could not have been seized under this\nprovision of the Act.\n12.2 He referred to section 292C of the Act, explaining that its\npresumption applies only to books of accounts, other documents, or\nvaluable articles, but does

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

b) of section 132(1) of the Act. Loose sheets and note pads are not\nbooks of accounts and therefore could not have been seized under this\nprovision of the Act.\n12.2 He referred to section 292C of the Act, explaining that its\npresumption applies only to books of accounts, other documents, or\nvaluable articles, but does

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

b) of section 132(1) of the Act. Loose sheets and note pads are not\nbooks of accounts and therefore could not have been seized under this\nprovision of the Act.\n12.2 He referred to section 292C of the Act, explaining that its\npresumption applies only to books of accounts, other documents, or\nvaluable articles, but does

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

b) of section 132(1) of the Act. Loose sheets and note pads are not\nbooks of accounts and therefore could not have been seized under this\nprovision of the Act.\n12.2 He referred to section 292C of the Act, explaining that its\npresumption applies only to books of accounts, other documents, or\nvaluable articles, but does