M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

gains that are derived from the\nexport. There cannot be any doubt that interest income earned by\nmembers credit co-operative society can said to be \"attributable to\"\nthe business of providing credit facilities to its members. Kindly\nnote that the deduction u/s.80P is not with respect to an activity but\nwith reference to business as a whole

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

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

Capital Expenditure incurred, Income accumulated or set apart for e-Governance project under section 11(1)(2) and deduction under section 11(1)(a) for accumulation of 15 percentage of Gross Revenue as per provisions of the Act. Ground No-3 and Ground No-4 are complementary to the Ground No-2 wherein, Vide Ground No-3 the appellant

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

capital gain has been earned by sale of share as penny stock. After recording of reasons and taking necessary approval from the competent authorities as per extended date by the CBDT, the approval was granted and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished reply on 30.10.2023 and the assessee also furnished reply

SRI. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on certificate dated 28.11.2011from PWD stating that property is situated beyond 12.6 km from BBMP limits, It has been submitted that Ld.AO erred in treating the purchase and sale of said property as business venture, and that, difference in price must be treated as business

SRI. B.T. DAYANANDA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. K. Gorodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 2(14) of the Act. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on certificate dated 28.11.2011from PWD stating that property is situated beyond 12.6 km from BBMP limits, It has been submitted that Ld.AO erred in treating the purchase and sale of said property as business venture, and that, difference in price must be treated as business

K. G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores

K.G. KRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2. Agricultural income declared by the assessee treated as 12.60 taxable income 3. Disallowance of expenditure claimed by assessee 5.67 disallowed on adhoc basis 4. Capital gain treated as business Income 1.60 5. Unexplained investment 200 253 Total 8.2. However, in this case there was a seized material to the addition made in respect of unexplained investment of Rs.2 crores

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains that are derived from the export. There cannot be any doubt that interest income earned by members credit co-operative society can said to be “attributable to” the business of providing credit facilities to its members. Kindly note that the deduction u/s. 80P is not with respect to an activity but with reference to business as a whole