M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

Charitable Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

Charitable Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

Charitable Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

Charitable Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

Charitable Trust" and the reasons recorded for re-opening of assessment, other statutory notices and the assessment is concluded and framed in the name of "M/s. Bhandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust" consequently the entire proceedings become void ab into, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] failed to appreciate that the reasons

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

charitable activities on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 2343 and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

charitable activities on the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 2343 and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the learned assessing officer. Without prejudice the rate, period and on what quantum the interest

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

234A and 234B was also disputed. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the grounds issue wise. As far as the limitation ground raised by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the letter furnished by the assessee on 17/07/2023 in which the assessee had prayed to decide the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

234A and 234B was also disputed. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) had adjudicated the grounds issue wise. As far as the limitation ground raised by the assessee, the Ld.CIT(A) had relied on the letter furnished by the assessee on 17/07/2023 in which the assessee had prayed to decide the denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act based

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD , BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012 – 13

234A. 234B and 234D. 11. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing. the appellant prays that the order passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) 14. Bangalore be quashed or in the alternative, the relief as prayed for be kindly allowed. [he appellant prays accordingly.” Brief facts

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly.” 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka Housing Board was established as per the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 by the Government of Karnataka as a successor of Mysore Housing Board which

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly.” 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka Housing Board was established as per the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 by the Government of Karnataka as a successor of Mysore Housing Board which

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly." 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka Housing Board was established as per the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 by the Government of Karnataka as a successor of Mysore Housing Board which

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1 , BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly." 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka Housing Board was established as per the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 by the Government of Karnataka as a successor of Mysore Housing Board which

RAJIV VENKATPATHI GOWDA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 234A, 234B AND C interest and 234C of the Act and further they are not as per the law The appellant craves leave 7 17,56 others to add, alter, amend, Page 3 of 6 substitute or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act as per Certificate issued dated 17.7.1974 and therefore assessee is availing exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The assessee is running several educational institutes . 5. On 18.7.2013, search & seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act was carried out on the assessee trust. Accordingly for the impugned assessment year, a notice u/s.153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

charitable trust registered u/s.12A of the Act as per Certificate issued dated 17.7.1974 and therefore assessee is availing exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The assessee is running several educational institutes . 5. On 18.7.2013, search & seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act was carried out on the assessee trust. Accordingly for the impugned assessment year, a notice u/s.153A

SASKEN FOUNDATION ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, EXEMPTIONS, , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

234A and 234B. Praver 4.1. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the order passed under section 250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A), NFAC to the extent prejudicial to the appellant be quashed or in the alternative the above grounds and the appeal

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

234A and 234B. 4. Prayer 4. 1. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing, the Appellant prays that the order passed under section 250 of the Act by the learned CIT(A), NFAC to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant be quashed or in the alternative the above grounds of appeal