MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

C' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1056, 1352 & 1353/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2016-17 Magadi Planning Authority, Bagegowda Layout, Tirumale Main Road, Magadi Ramnagar – 562 120. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Ramanagar. The Income Tax Officer Exemption, Ward -3, Bengaluru. PAN – AAALM 1912 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1056, 1352 & 1353/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2016-17 Magadi Planning Authority, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bagegowda Layout, Ward -3, Tirumale Main Road, Ramanagar. Magadi Ramnagar – 562 120. The Income Tax Officer PAN – AAALM 1912 D Exemption, Ward -3, Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

C' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1056, 1352 & 1353/Bang/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Magadi Planning Authority, Bagegowda Layout, Tirumale Main Road, Magadi Ramnagar – 562 120. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Ramanagar. The Income Tax Officer Exemption, Ward -3, Bengaluru. PAN – AAALM 1912 D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

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

251 of the Act to the Ld AO for verification, without any decision/ direction on the substantive issue. Concise grounds in AY 2017-18: Payment to United Breweries Holding Company (“UBHL”): 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of the entire payment made to UBHL, without appreciating that the restraint order was only for Dividend payments

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

251 of the Act to the Ld AO for verification, without any decision/ direction on the substantive issue. Concise grounds in AY 2017-18: Payment to United Breweries Holding Company (“UBHL”): 6. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of the entire payment made to UBHL, without appreciating that the restraint order was only for Dividend payments

M/S. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

trust has received capitation fee in cash and has been carrying on the activities which are not in accordance with the objects of the trust. 251. The appellant is a trust registered under sec 12A of the Act w.e.f. 14.11.1984. The main object of the trust is to establish educational institutions in all faculties including medical, dental, pharmacy, engineering

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

C) the appellant Company the learned assessing officer has not properly followed the mandatory requirement and various parameters for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the act have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on and invalid as the action of jurisdiction under section 153C of the act is void ab initio and requires

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

C) the appellant Company the learned assessing officer has not properly followed the mandatory requirement and various parameters for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the act have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on and invalid as the action of jurisdiction under section 153C of the act is void ab initio and requires

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

C) the appellant Company the learned assessing officer has not properly followed the mandatory requirement and various parameters for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the act have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on and invalid as the action of jurisdiction under section 153C of the act is void ab initio and requires

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

C) the appellant Company the learned assessing officer has not properly followed the mandatory requirement and various parameters for assuming jurisdiction under section 153C of the act have not been properly complied with and consequently the impugned order passed on and invalid as the action of jurisdiction under section 153C of the act is void ab initio and requires

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD (LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

1) of the\nAct which expressly restricts the computation of undisclosed\nincome to the evidence found during search, the statement\nrecorded under section 132(4) of the Act can form a basis for a\nblock assessment only if such statement relates to any\nincriminating evidence of undisclosed income unearthed during\nsearch and cannot be the sole basis for making

PODAR EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASST. DIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ITA No.1022/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2010-10) 2. ITA No.1023/Bang/2014 (Assessment years: 2010-11) 1. Podar Education & Sports Trust, 103/1, Basavanpur, Off.Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. PAN: AAATP9243N 2. Podar Education Trust, 103/1, Basavanpur, Off.Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. PAN: AAATP9243N … Appellant Vs. Asst. Director of Income

LOWES SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

c) By computing the interest on receivables from AEs till the date of collection instead of restricting the interest till 31 March 2020. d) By ignoring that weighted average receivable period of the Appellant is 38 days, which is less than the weighted average receivable period of the final list of comparable of the Ld. TPO post DRP directions

THE BEEKEEPERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,SAKALESHAPURA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CPC), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. The Beekeepers Co-Operative Vs. Dcit, Society Ltd., Centralized Processing Centre, Post Box No.2, S. P. Road, Bengaluru. Sakaleshapura – 573 134. Pan : Aaaat 1506 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2021 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Bombay. In The Return Of Income Filed For Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessee Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(23B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), Of A Sum Of Rs.9,33,308/-. In An Intimation Dated 29.3.2019 Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Said Claim Was Rejected By The Cpc. Page 2 Of 6

c] of the return, the Assessee had claimed exemption u/s. 10[23B] of the Act. It was submitted that the Act casts a duty on the assessing officer to find out as to under which clause the Assessee is entitled for exemption, if any and that cannot be done when the return is processed by the Computer

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

c) Since it is only the Government that has the prerogative to build rail-based transportation system for the public use, hence there is hence monopoly created. There is the authority vested in the Government to create such a monopoly consistent with the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution and the State Government, which owns the company, may discharge

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

c) Since it is only the Government that has the prerogative to build rail-based transportation system for the public use, hence there is hence monopoly created. There is the authority vested in the Government to create such a monopoly consistent with the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution and the State Government, which owns the company, may discharge

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

c) Since it is only the Government that has the prerogative to build rail-based transportation system for the public use, hence there is hence monopoly created. There is the authority vested in the Government to create such a monopoly consistent with the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution and the State Government, which owns the company, may discharge

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

c) Since it is only the Government that has the prerogative to build rail-based transportation system for the public use, hence there is hence monopoly created. There is the authority vested in the Government to create such a monopoly consistent with the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution and the State Government, which owns the company, may discharge