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

10. Thus, the test of business, trade or commerce has to be viewed from the angle that the activity of the trust has continued on business principle and pursued with reasonable continuity. If the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is applied in the instant case, it would be seen that none of its receipts

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

10. Thus, the test of business, trade or commerce has to be viewed from the angle that the activity of the trust has continued on business principle and pursued with reasonable continuity. If the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is applied in the instant case, it would be seen that none of its receipts

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

10. Thus, the test of business, trade or commerce has to be viewed from the angle that the activity of the trust has continued on business principle and pursued with reasonable continuity. If the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is applied in the instant case, it would be seen that none of its receipts

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

10. Thus, the test of business, trade or commerce has to be viewed from the angle that the activity of the trust has continued on business principle and pursued with reasonable continuity. If the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is applied in the instant case, it would be seen that none of its receipts

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

10. Thus, the test of business, trade or commerce has to be viewed from the angle that the activity of the trust has continued on business principle and pursued with reasonable continuity. If the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court is applied in the instant case, it would be seen that none of its receipts

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

10(23C) or other provisions of the Act. H. Application of interpretation . Page 17 of 30 At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the conclusions arrived at by way of this judgment, neither precludes any of the assessees (whether statutory, or non-statutory) advancing objects of general public utility, from claiming exemption, nor the taxing authorities from

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

10% of depreciation a sum of Rs.27,87,84,300/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax 32. (Appeals) is not justified in law in confirming the depreciation allowed by the learned Assessing Officer treating as capital expenditure when the appellan: claimed as revenue expenditure on the facts and circumstances

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

10% of depreciation a sum of Rs.27,87,84,300/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. Without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax 32. (Appeals) is not justified in law in confirming the depreciation allowed by the learned Assessing Officer treating as capital expenditure when the appellan: claimed as revenue expenditure on the facts and circumstances

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.

15) the assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance. With respect to depreciation allowance, the issue was partly ITA Nos.1283/Bang/2016 & 169 to 171/Bang/2025 Page 10

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.

15) the assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance. With respect to depreciation allowance, the issue was partly ITA Nos.1283/Bang/2016 & 169 to 171/Bang/2025 Page 10

M/S HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2008-09 M/S. Herbalife International India Vs. Dcit - 11(4), Private Limited, Bengaluru. Pardhanani Wilshire #14, Commissariat Road, Bengaluru – 560 025. Pan : Aaach 8025 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2021 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 27.08.2018 Of Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Of Appeal Nos.2 To 12 Raised By The Assessee Reads As Follows:

section 263 of the Act by an Order dated 17.03.2014. In this order, the CIT was of the view that the assessee had claimed depreciation at 100% on lease hold improvements of Rs.2,10,01,372/- by treating the lease hold improvements as purely temporary erections. It is not disputed that as per entry appearing in Appendix – 1 of Rule

M/S. A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION,MANGALORE vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

Depreciation debited to Income & Expenditure Account of Rs. 13,47,71,387/-; and [b] Donation & Charity debited to Income & Expenditure Account of Rs. 12,24,78,046/-. 9. In course of the assessment proceedings, the AO sought for various details and particulars, which were furnished. It was noticed by the AO that the appellant had made a payment

M/S. WIPRO LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

section 35 of the Income Tax Act on 31/03/2015 but no approval is granted till date. Considering the fact that the assessee has applied for recognizing its activities as “scientific research" and DSIR has not granted the approval even after four and half years clearly show that the assessee is not eligible for deduction under Sec 35. Hence this contention

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

10 of 110 Central Government and get the approval of the prescribed authority. In the present case the fresh claim is made by the assessee with regard to conducting scientific research. Hence the burden is on the assessee to refer the matter to the prescribed authority for certificate. The assessee informed the Panel vide letter dated 24/09/2019 that it filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

15% of receipts can be considered as reasonable and necessary for sustenance and expansion of the institution. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an institution cannot charge anything unreasonable under the guise of surplus and make/profit, indirectly or systematically, and then claim that they are established for educational purpose and not for purpose of profit

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

10(23C)(iv) of the said Act, we would have to give up the strict and literal interpretation sought to be given to the expression "charitable purpose by the revenue. (viii). The expression 'charitable purpose", as defined in Section 2(15) cannot be construed literally and in absolute terms. The correct interpretation of the proviso to Section 2(15

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

10,92,957 in relation to income on which deduction under section 10AA was claimed) once the dispute is settled 5. Levy of interest under section 234B: 5.1. The levy of interest under section 234B is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. Prayer: 6.1. Based on the above grounds and other grounds adduced at the time

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

15) of the Act. Having held so, we direct the AO to allow the assessee the benefits of section 11 of the Act while giving effect to this order. Consequently, grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed.” 10. In view of the aforesaid decision of the tribunal, we are of the view that the assessee’s activities