SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to have the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

section 2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act cannot be\ninvoked so as to bring the capital gains into tax in the assessment year 2005-\n2006 and thus the very foundation of the assessee's case is devoid of merits\nand not tenable and more so there is a specific clause in the JDA as\nenumerated earlier that the assessee

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

2 of Section 263 of the Act thereby\nrendering the assessment order passed to be erroneous and\nprejudicial to the interest of revenue.\n2.3 Against this assessee is in appeal before us by way of following\ngrounds:\n1. The order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax,\nBangalore-I (Pr. CIT), in so far as it is against

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

2 of 8 from other sources against the business loss and carry forward the unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 46,04,890/-. The capital gains were separately offered to tax, and the assessee discharged the applicable tax liability of Rs. 3,58,312/-. However, the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), while processing the return under Section

IBM GLOBAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2000-2001

gains of the undertaking; and that sub-section, as if such amendment or (iv) in computing the depreciation allowance omission had not been made.] under section 32, the written down value of Explanation. For the purposes of this any asset used for the purposes of the section, business of the undertaking shall be computed (i) free trade zone means

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains as computed by the learned assessing officer.\n(5) That, in facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that\nthe alleged transaction was between relatives i.e. between\nson -in-law and father – in – law and that the intension of\nthe parties was to effect a deed of gift

SHARADA MOHAN SHETTY,KARWAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, KARWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or During The Courses Of Appeal Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 30/09/2015 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring Page 2 Of 16

46 of 2014, 494 of 2013 and 495 of 2013 High Court of Karnataka, Order Dated 141h July 2014 2. V.A. Tharabai V/s DCIT, Vellore, ITA No.1894 (Mds) 2011 ITAT "D" Bench Chennai Order Dated 121h January 2012 3. The ITO, Ward (1)(2)(2), Bangalore V/s Mujeeb Urrehaman,ITA No.1523/Bang/2019ITAT "C" Bench, Bangalore Order Dated 31st August2021 4. ACIT

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

M/S. THE BHAVASARA KSHATRIYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MYSURU

capital, if not immediately required\nto be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they\ndeposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income\nis attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit\nfacilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

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 in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

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 in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against

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 in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

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

capital in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

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 in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

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 in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

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 in the audited balance sheet, it is clear that\nPCARD Banks/ primaries are members of the assessee. This\nis also clear from clause 2(n) of chapter II of the bye laws and\nsection 2(a-1-2) and 2(j-4) of the KCS Act. In fact the first\nlisted object of the assessee is to advance loans

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALLARI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuprathamika Krishi Pattina Vs The Income Tax Officer Sahakara Sangha Niymit Ward - 2 No. 350, Ward No. 15, Hospet 583201 Amaravathi Village, Hospet Tq. Ballari - 583201 Pan – Aaajp0326N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, Irs (Retd) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 13.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi In Appeal Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250//2022-23/1047496227(1) Dated 18.11.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Impugned Assessment Order Made U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated, 25-11-2019, Is Arbitrary & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Liable To Be Vacated As Void. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate: (I) That The Interest Income Accruing From The Investments Made In Statutory Compliance Of The Provisions Of The State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 Is Eligible For The Deduction As Business Income U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

46 of the Judgment) (iii) Under clause (d) of section 80P(2), the interest or dividend income derived by a co- operative society from investments with other co-operative society is also eligible for the deduction whole of such income. (Para 35 of the Judgment) (iv) The restrictive clause in sub-section (4) of section 80P applies only