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

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

charitable activity through advancement of\nan object of general public utility and therefore, has\nconcluded that the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is\nnot applicable to the case of the assessee and has further\nheld that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section\n11 of the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing\nofficer

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

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

charitable activity through advancement of\nan object of general public utility and therefore, has\nconcluded that the Proviso to Section 2(15) of the Act is\nnot applicable to the case of the assessee and has further\nheld that the assessee is entitled to benefit of Section\n11 of the Act. It has also been noticed that the Assessing\nofficer

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

charitable after being satisfied with its objects and issued a registration certificate; 3.16 In the instant case, the State has a complete control over the activities of the Assessee with a view to see that there is no waste or misuse of public funds. The procedures adopted in allotment of work are explained as follows: ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

charitable after being satisfied with its objects and issued a registration certificate; 3.16 In the instant case, the State has a complete control over the activities of the Assessee with a view to see that there is no waste or misuse of public funds. The procedures adopted in allotment of work are explained as follows: ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

charitable after being satisfied with its objects and issued a registration certificate; 3.16 In the instant case, the State has a complete control over the activities of the Assessee with a view to see that there is no waste or misuse of public funds. The procedures adopted in allotment of work are explained as follows: ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

charitable after being satisfied with its objects and issued a registration certificate; 3.16 In the instant case, the State has a complete control over the activities of the Assessee with a view to see that there is no waste or misuse of public funds. The procedures adopted in allotment of work are explained as follows: ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

charitable after being satisfied with its objects and issued a registration certificate; 3.16 In the instant case, the State has a complete control over the activities of the Assessee with a view to see that there is no waste or misuse of public funds. The procedures adopted in allotment of work are explained as follows: ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

charitable after being satisfied with its objects and issued a registration certificate; 3.16 In the instant case, the State has a complete control over the activities of the Assessee with a view to see that there is no waste or misuse of public funds. The procedures adopted in allotment of work are explained as follows: ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

charitable after being satisfied with its objects and issued a registration certificate; 3.16 In the instant case, the State has a complete control over the activities of the Assessee with a view to see that there is no waste or misuse of public funds. The procedures adopted in allotment of work are explained as follows: ITA No.947&948 /Bang/2019

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE vs. M/S CENTRE FPR CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR PLATFORMS , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Centre For Cellular & Molecular Platforms, The Income Tax Officer (E), Post Bag No. 6505, Ward -1 , Vs. G.K.V.K. P.O. Bangalore. Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560 065. Pan: Aadcc8572D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, Jcit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2019

trust for all the assessment years under dispute, subject to the following conditions, namely: "i) The registration U/s. 12AA (1)(b)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not automatically exempt the income of the Trust/Institution. The question of taxability of the income of the Trust/Institution shall be examined and decided upon by the Assessing Officer at the time

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

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Trust had filed its return of income showing the capital gain from the sale of shares and further erred in not adjudicating on this crucial issue by holding that this is academic in nature 7.5 The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in making the addition, by making a frivolous observation that there

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS RANGE , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

charitable trust in accordance with law under the scheme of the Income-tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in holding a sum of Rs.1533.2 (Rupees in lakhs) being rental income as covered by the proviso ti section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

charitable trust in accordance with law under the scheme of the Income-tax Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. iii. Without prejudice the learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) is not justified in law in holding a sum of Rs.1533.2 (Rupees in lakhs) being rental income as covered by the proviso ti section

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

43B of the Act. 8. The Ld CIT (A) and the Ld AO have erred in making the addition despite the fact that the Appellant had made the remittances towards PF and ESI contribution of employees before the due date of filing return under section 139(1) of the Act, which fact has not been disputed

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

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

43B\namounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-;\nviii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted;\nix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and\nx) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted.\nThe Appellant prays accordingly.\"\n\n4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka Housing\nBoard was established as per the Karnataka Housing Board\nAct

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

43B\namounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-;\nviii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted;\nix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and\nx) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted.\nThe Appellant prays accordingly.\"\n4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka Housing\nBoard was established as per the Karnataka Housing Board\nAct

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

43B does not arise. On proper appreciation of law, the aforesaid expenses cannot be added as income of the appellant. The conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer and CIT(A) being erroneous on facts and law is to be deleted. 5. The learned Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have erred in treating EMD/Security Deposit

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

Charitable Trust (supra) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression “sufficient cause” the principle of advancing substantial justice

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