M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

crediting the trustees\naccount and debiting the land account.\n(d) That, pursuant to an earlier action u/s 132 of the I.T.Act., carried out on the\ntrustees and its group entities on 20/03/2014 and a simultaneous survey that was\ncarried out on RECT u/s 133(A) of the I.T.Act, assessments were completed for the\n Assessment years

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

Charitable Trust and therefore treated the said credits as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act. Similarly, the AO had disallowed the payment of premium to LIC on the ground that the said payment was not made from the bank account of the assessee. The assessee had not objected for taxing the said amount and therefore the said payment

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR SIDDALINGAPPA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE- 1(2)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Shivakumar Siddalingappa, The Income Tax 93/4, Sondekoppa Circle, Officer, Vs. Nh – 4, Nelamangala, Circle 1 (2) (3), Bangalore – 562 123. Bangalore. Pan: Akups8124Q Appellant Respondent

Charitable Trust. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed appreciate the fact that the appellant is one of the partners in the Partnership Firm M/s. Harsha Hospital and neither a trustee nor a Managing Director of the Trust, as mentioned in the Assessing order, as the reason given by the assessing officer treating the amount as unexplained cash

AKASH EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

charitable trust and had received the amount of Rs.15,64,50,000 in cash from one of its trustees, viz., Sh. K Muniraju. The default, if any, was of a technical or venial nature for which the assessee was not liable to penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. 11. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that there

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

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

charitable trust\nregistered u/s.12A of the Act as per Certificate issued dated\n17.7.1974 and therefore assessee is availing exemption u/s.11 of the\nAct. The assessee is running several educational institutes .\n5. On 18.7.2013, search & seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act was\ncarried out on the assessee trust. Accordingly for the impugned\n assessment year, a notice u/s.153A

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

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

charitable trust\nregistered u/s.12A of the Act as per Certificate issued dated\n17.7.1974 and therefore assessee is availing exemption u/s.11 of the\nAct. The assessee is running several educational institutes .\n5. On 18.7.2013, search & seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act was\ncarried out on the assessee trust. Accordingly for the impugned\n assessment year, a notice u/s.153A

APMC TARIKERE,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHICKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

charitable activity carried out by it. Further, the assessee being a registered trust u/s 12A of the Act, the AO held that the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption u/s 10(26AAB) of the Act except claim u/s 10(1) & 10(23C) as per section 11(7) of the Act and accordingly concluded that exemption claimed by the assessee

M/S UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-7 , BANGALORE

In the result, ground 7 is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am It(Tp)A No.3091/Bang/2018 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Joint Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Special Range-7 V. Bangalore. # 24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent)

credit of 37,78,149 tax deducted at source / tax collected at source – Rs.37,78,149 9. Grounds of appeal relating to levy of 2,03,53,26,920 interest u/s 234B of the Act – Rs.203,53,26,920 Total tax effect 6,36,45,96,039 4 IT(TP)A No.3091/Bang/2018 M/s.United Spirits Limited. We shall adjudicate the above

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

unexplained reasons, the assessee has stopped charging interest in the assessment year 2003-04. The commercial bonafides of the present transactions are not established. As regards the assessee's claim that the revenue authorities have re- characterized the transaction, and that they do not have the powers to do so, we find that the claim of the assessee

M/S. UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.489/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. United Spirits Limited, Ub Towers, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001 ….Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 7(1)(1), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Perci Pardiwala, Senior Advocate & Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Bipin C.N, Jcit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2020. Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2020. O R D E R Per Shri B.R. Baskaran, A.M. : The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Assessment Order Dated 31-01-2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer For Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Act.

unexplained reasons, the assessee has stopped charging interest in the assessment year 2003-04. The commercial bonafides of the present transactions are not established. As regards the assessee's claim that the revenue authorities have re- characterized the transaction, and that they do not have the powers to do so, we find that the claim of the assessee

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

credit for VAT, thus the purchases by the appellant from this entity cannot be added. vi. all the payments have been made by the appellant through proper banking channels and the same has been recorded in the books of the appellant and the appellant has received the goods from the said suppliers and the transaction has been declared

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

credit for VAT, thus the purchases by the appellant from this entity cannot be added. vi. all the payments have been made by the appellant through proper banking channels and the same has been recorded in the books of the appellant and the appellant has received the goods from the said suppliers and the transaction has been declared

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

credit for VAT, thus the purchases by the appellant from this entity cannot be added. vi. all the payments have been made by the appellant through proper banking channels and the same has been recorded in the books of the appellant and the appellant has received the goods from the said suppliers and the transaction has been declared

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

credit for VAT, thus the purchases by the appellant from this entity cannot be added. vi. all the payments have been made by the appellant through proper banking channels and the same has been recorded in the books of the appellant and the appellant has received the goods from the said suppliers and the transaction has been declared