HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

gains of business or profession, the amount of purchase and sales i.e. turnover would include any tax, duty cess or fee. Therefore, the rigour of section 43B may be applicable in the case of Sales-tax or Excise Duty but the same cannot be said to be the position in case of Service- tax because of two reasons. Firstly

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

TOTAL ENVIRONMENT BUILDING SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2012-13

gains of business or profession, the amount of purchase and sales i.e. turnover would include any tax, duty cess or fee. Therefore, the rigour of section 43B may be applicable in the case of Sales-tax or Excise Duty but the same cannot be said to be the position in case of Service- tax because of two reasons. Firstly

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

DCIT, C-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital in nature since the decision in Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd. (supra) was with respect to a particular software and that the nature of software whether it is a system software or application software needs to be analysed to decide the treatment under the Act. 20. In view of the above discussion, we remit the issue back

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

capital, if not immediately\nrequired to be lent to the members, the society cannot keep the\nsaid amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to\nearn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the\nprofits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to\nits members only. The society is not carrying

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C-1(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

gains after considering those incomes / expenses are ‘derived from the business’ of the assessee and therefore would be eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA. Therefore in the given case of the assessee, the important factor to be checked for determination ‘Other Income’ to be eligible for deduction u/s.80IA is, whether the income is inextricably linked and is having direct and proximate

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant.\n\n4. Non accounting of Receipts of Maintenance Charges and Expenses in relation to National Games Village\n\n5.1 The learned Assessing officer has erred in making an additional of Rs.3,65,00,000 on\n\naccount of recording of income and expenditure relating to maintenance charges

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No :Aaajk0398K\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N: 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals\Nare Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together And\Ndisposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025\Nfor The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee\Nhas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N1.

section 11 is to be\nallowed as claimed by the appellant.\n\n4. Non accounting of Receipts of Maintenance Charges and Expenses in relation to\nNational Games Village\n5.1 The learned Assessing officer has erred in making an additional of Rs.3,65,00,000 on\naccount of recording of income and expenditure relating to maintenance charges is bad in\nlaw

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

capital payouts etc. The entire handling of cash is done\nby me and my assistant Shri. Mathew Joseph.\nPage 26 of 147\n14.3 The same facts were confronted to the Chairman of M/s.\nJDPL, Sri Paul P. John on 27.2.2017 and on 6.3.2017 and he\nadmitted that M/s. JDPL had not maintained the proper bills and\nvouchers for carriage outwards

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.Dell International Services The Additional Commissioner India Private Limited Of Income-Tax (Ltu) V. Bangalore. Divyashree Greens, Sy.Nos.12/1, 12/2A & 13/1A,Challaghatta Village,Varthur Hobli Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading In Computer Systems Including Support & Maintenance Services & Leasing Of Computers. For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,31,24,760. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 2 It(Tp)A No.2835/Bang/2017. M/S.Dell International Services India Private Limited. 11.09.2014. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, It Was Noticed That The International Transactions Entered By The Assessee With Its Associated Enterprises (Aes) Had Exceeded The Prescribed Limit, Hence, The Matter Was Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Determine The Arm’S Length Price (Alp) Of The Said Transaction. The Tpo Passed Order U/S 92Ca Of The I.T.Act On 19.10.2016. In The Said Order, The Tpo Had Proposed Following Adjustments:-

Section 37(1) of the Act for the reason that the said expenditure was incurred for maintaining uniformity in the franchisee stores and the Assessee neither owns nor derives any enduring benefit on such expenditure. 37. The AO classified the expenditure as capital in nature for the reasons that (i) the Form 3CD filed for AY 2012-13 noted

JOHN DISTILLERIES PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

capital, payouts etc. The entire handling of cash is done\nby me and my assistant Shri. Mathew Joseph.\nPage 47 of 147\n20.8 However, it is noted by the ld. AO that the Chairman of the\ncompany Shri Paul P. John has not accepted income earned out of\ntrips of trucks was not accounted, which is in variance