KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2009-10

charitable organization [as per the order passed under section I2AA(3)], is therefore bad in law and liable to be quashed. 12. The learned counsel for the Assessee further submitted that the order passed in the status of AOP (Trust) is bad in law. It was submitted by him that section 2(31) of the Act defines “person

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

Charitable Foundation [1987] 164 ITR 439 (Raj), Padanilam Welfare Commissioner Trust v DCIT Chennai ITA No 444/Mds/ 2010, as well as CIT v Institute of Banking Personnel [2003] 131 taxmann 386 (BOM). 15. The CIT (Appeals) however, dismissed the appeal on both the grounds vide his impugned order observing as follows:- "the adjustment has been made

ACIT-(E), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BHAGWAN MAHAVEER MEMORIAL JAIN EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed while the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Jason P.Boaz

trusts which are claiming exemption u/s 11, and it is not applicable to exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv). Due clarification was given to the DIT(Exemption) during the course of proceedings u/s 263 as stated above. However, the objection raised by the DIT(Exemption) with regard to CBDT permission is applicable when any expenditure is incurred which tends to promote

M/S. NORTH WESTERN KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,HUBLI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), HUBLI

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 &

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

263 of the Act dt.26.3.2010 directed the Assessing Officer to allow accumulation under Section 11(1)(a) of the Act only in respect of 15% of Net Receipts. The consequent assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.31.3.2015 wherein the assessee's income was accordingly determined at Rs.20,53,10,784. For Assessment Year

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

section u/s 142A reference to DVO is valid 9.1 The directions of Hon'ble High Court were also considered in the present order u/s 143(3) rws 263 rws 260 (1A) by the AO in the present order under appeal. It is observed by the AO that Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has upheld the validity of valuation report

DCIT, SHIMOGA vs. M/S AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, SHIMOGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

2 of the ITAT cancelling the order under Section 263 passed by the CIT, Davangere and the same is pending. 3. Depreciation is not allowable since the assessee is deriving income from other sources and not doing any business and also the assessee is a registered charitable trust

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD vs. ADDL.DIT,

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

charitable purposes”. It was further noted that the objects of the assessee are similar to the objects of Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority whose issue is decided by coordinate bench reported in 103 TTJ 988. It was held therein that the activities and objects are more of commercialized nature and no charity involved in it. The Ld.CIT(A) relied

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

charitable purposes”. It was further noted that the objects of the assessee are similar to the objects of Punjab Urban Planning Development Authority whose issue is decided by coordinate bench reported in 103 TTJ 988. It was held therein that the activities and objects are more of commercialized nature and no charity involved in it. The Ld.CIT(A) relied

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(EXEMTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum

M/S SHREE DEVI EDUCATION TRUST,MANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshree Devi Education Trust, Maina Towers, Ballalbagh, Mangalore-575003. … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1),Bangalore. … Respondent

section 263 of the Act and the appellant was merely called upon the appear before the learned CIT and give details and thus, the very initiation of the proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act, is illegal and void ab- initio. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned C.I.T. failed to appreciate that there was no error much less

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

263/- by erroneously stating that the Appellant has not demonstrated the description and quantum of expenditure incurred to keep the company alive while the Appellant had duly submitted such details (including audited financial statement) during the assessment and appellate proceedings; 5. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in holding that net interest income is chargeable under section

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

263/- by erroneously stating that the Appellant has not demonstrated the description and quantum of expenditure incurred to keep the company alive while the Appellant had duly submitted such details (including audited financial statement) during the assessment and appellate proceedings; 5. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in holding that net interest income is chargeable under section

M/S SAMBHAV INSTITUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

263/- by erroneously stating that the Appellant has not demonstrated the description and quantum of expenditure incurred to keep the company alive while the Appellant had duly submitted such details (including audited financial statement) during the assessment and appellate proceedings; 5. The Learned CIT(A) and AO have erred in holding that net interest income is chargeable under section

SHREE GOVERDHAN NATHJI HAVELI TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-WARD-3 , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shree Goverdhan The Income Tax Nathji Haveli Trust, Officer, No. 15, Nehrunagar, Exemptions, Seshadripuram, Ward – 3, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacts7617M Appellant Respondent

charitable activity. Hence, there is excess of expenditure over income hence the question of taxing the same does not arise. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal. 12. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellant

M/S BHADRA EDUCATION TRUST,DAVANGERE vs. CIT, DAVANGERE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

charitable activities in the field of education, filed its return for the assessment year 2010-2011 on 06/07/2010 declaring total income as NIL. The assessment was made under section 143(3) on 27/0/2013, by accepting the income as NIL as declared. ITA.607/Bang/2014 Page - 2 03. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Davangere, issued a notice u/s 263 dated 19/11/2013