DESHPANDE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HUBLI vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

Trust (the Assessee/Appellant) for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the Appellate Order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (the Ld. CIT(A)) dated 15.10.2025 wherein the Appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order passed on 29.03.2022 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 29.03.2022, was dismissed. 3. The Assessee

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

144B of the Act, assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, assessee had contended that reopening of assessment is bad in law since there has been full and true disclosure by the assessee in the return of income. Further, it was contended that since the reassessment notice has been issued beyond four years from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. COSMOPOLIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

charitable objects, including capital expenditure on school infrastructure and donation to another educational trust. This clearly demonstrates that the assessee has acted in line with its stated objects and within the framework of law. 15.5 It is also pertinent to note that the learned ACIT (exemption) circle 1 of Bengaluru 1, in his remand report has already accepted

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.

Trust or Commission (by whatever name called) will require similar consideration – i.e., whether it is at cost with a nominal markup or significantly higher, to determine if it falls within the mischief of “commercial activity”. However, in the case of such notified bodies, there is no quantified limit in Section 10(46). Therefore, the Central Government would have to decide

M/S. GOVERNMENT TOOL ROOM AND TRAINING CENTRE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION WARD-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S Government Tool Room & Vs. Ito (Exemption), Training Centre, Ward - 1 1, Rajajinagar Industrial Area, Bengaluru. Rajajinagar, Bengaluru -560 044. Pan : Aaacg 8162 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2024

Trust registered under section 12A of the Act as a scientific and industrial research organization. For the Assessment Year 2021-22, the return of income was filed on 27.2.2021 declaring Nil income. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 29.06.2021. Assessee was directed to justify the claim of exemption

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowances / additions made

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

144B of the Act. The AO confirmed the additions proposed in the DAO as per the directions of the DRP. The AO accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.640,40,30,225/- against the income of Rs.461,47,05,660/- declared by the assessee in its returned income. The assessee being aggrieved by the disallowances / additions made

IRENE PEREIRA ,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

section 148A(d) of the Act, assessee’s submission filed before the NFAC, bank statements, Details of payment made to Plama Developers, property purchase agreement along with passport copy and immigration details. The assessee has also submitted employment letter of Kuwait Oil Company as well as salary letter of Kuwait Oil Company. 7. Before us, learned AR of the assessee

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGLALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

144B r.w.s.\n147 of the Act\n20.12.2019\nITA No.\n281/Bang/2024\nAppeal field before CIT(A)\n03.03.2023\n03.03.2023\n03.03.2023\n03.03.2023\n7.1 The above table shows the chronological events for delay in\nfiling the appeals before ld. CIT(A). Thus, the contention of the ld.\nA.R. is that the delay was due to pursuing alternative remedy by way\nof writ and writ

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. K J FOUNDATION, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for these two assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

charitable thinking is not directed towards benefitting one's self. It is always directed at benefitting others". In the instant case, the assessee trust was only interested in benefitting the director of Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd who is its own trustee. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend all or any of the Grounds of Appeal before

ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. K J FOUNDATION, BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for these two assessment years are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

charitable thinking is not directed towards benefitting one's self. It is always directed at benefitting others". In the instant case, the assessee trust was only interested in benefitting the director of Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd who is its own trustee. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend all or any of the Grounds of Appeal before