SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

3,01,23,273/- and Capital expenditure of Rs.2,10,07,527/-coming to a total of Rs 5,11,30,800/- is eligible for deduction from Gross Income. Thus from its Gross Income of Rs. 5,71,54,412/- this Rs 5,11,30,800/- had to be deducted to arrive at the Surplus as per Sec 11

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

11. We have also perused section 80 of the Act which speaks about the submission of return for losses. “Submission of return for losses. 80. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed in accordance with the provisions of sub- section (3) of section 139, shall be carried forward

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

11 8. The ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 148(1) at a time when a valid return was pending for assessment and there was time available to issue notice under section 143(2) and the complete assessment under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer could have issued notice under section

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

3,34,24,359 10 87,66,000 33,42,435 54,23565 Furniture 2,03,74,000 1,12,98,402 10 20,37,400 11,29,840 9,07,560 & fittings Machiner 11,58,00,000 5,40,10,049 15 1,73,70,000 81,01,507 92,68493 y & plant Vehicles 11

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

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

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year.” 10. As already stated, the aforesaid amendment is prospective and will apply only from A.Y. 2015-16. In view of the above legal position, we are of the view that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. K J FOUNDATION, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

depreciation of Rs. 1,50,36,372/- since the Computation of Income is done according to the Provisions of Sec. 28 to 45 of the I.T. Act. In this regard it is held that the exemption under section 11 of the Act has already been allowed, this issue need not to be adjudicated. 5.13 With regard to the Ground

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.

3 of 22 4.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in concluding that the appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.2 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in concluding that (a) The activities carried on by the appellant are commercial in nature with an intention to make

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.

3 of 22 4.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in concluding that the appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Income tax Act, 1961. 4.2 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in concluding that (a) The activities carried on by the appellant are commercial in nature with an intention to make

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act and therefore, they are in the nature of intangible assets, eligible for depreciation at the prescribed rate, wherein it was held as under: “The law has specified items of intangible assets eligible for depreciation in the following categories : (i) know-how (ii) patents (iii) copyrights (iv) trademarks (v) licences (vi) franchises

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

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

11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third proviso to section 143(3) (all with retrospective effect from

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

depreciation is allowable on the assets the cost of which has been fully allowed as application of income under s. 11 in past years. In Govindu Naicker Estate v. Asstt. DIT [2001] 248 ITR 368/[1999] 105 Taxman 719 (Mad.), the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that the income of the trust has to be arrived at having

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 92CC with the caption “Advance Pricing Agreement” provides through sub-section (1): `The Board, with the approval of the Central Government, may enter into an advance pricing agreement with any person, determining the arm's length price … in relation to an international transaction …’. Sub-section (2) gives the manner of determination of the ALP referred to in sub-section

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

11 of assessment order) would further justify the nonexistence of 100% EOU. The letter dated 17/4/2006 written by assessee to SEZ authorities (page 13 of assessment order) expressing readiness of commencing the production by end of June 2006 would further justify the above stand of the revenue. The letter dated 2/7/2006 (page 15 of the assessment order

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner: A.Y. Opening WDV Addition Total assets Depreciation Closing WDV (Rs.) during the (Rs.) at 25% (Rs.) (Rs.) year