M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation of Rs.3,11,06,880 under the MAT provisions and considered the tax payable on regular income, since it was more than the tax payable under the MAT provisions. 5. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

depreciation of Rs.3,11,06,880 under the MAT provisions and considered the tax payable on regular income, since it was more than the tax payable under the MAT provisions. 5. On appeal, the CIT(Appeals) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

11 of 25 of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs CIT reported in (2016) 73 Taxmann.com 239 he submitted that this year is the 1st year of claim and that earlier years assessing officer has not disputed the expenses claimed under section

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

section 11(1) has ITA Nos.71 & 72/Bang/2015 Page 5 of 15 to be computed in normal commercial manner, the amount of depreciation

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

5 to section 11(1) of the Act which clarified that the calculation of income required to be applied or accumulated during the previous year shall be made without any set off or deduction or allowance of any excess application of any of the year preceeding the previous year. We are of the considered opinion that the fact that

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

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.

depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly.” 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka

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.

depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly.” 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka

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

11 of 58 time limit of one month in section 144C(4) cannot be read as additional time provided to the assessing officer, over and above limitation in section 153 of the Act to pass the final assessment order in the case of an eligible assessee. It was submitted that for the same reason, the time limit of one month

ITI EDUCATION COMMITTEE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Iti Education Committee, Vidyamandir, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru. Pan : Aaaai0748L … Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward - 1, Bengaluru … Respondent Appellant By : Shri H Sambhu Sharma, C.A Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Acit(Dr)

5) of section 11, after the expiry of one year from the end of the previous year in which such asset is acquired or the 31st day of March, 1992, whichever is later:] Provided also that nothing contained in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) 29[or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via)] shall apply in relation

DY.DIT, BANGALORE vs. MAHARANI LAKSHMI AMMANI COLLEGE TRUST, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

section 11(1)(a) of the Act. Our view is also supported by the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal (1995) 211 ITR 293. Accordingly, we answer question No.3 in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Department.” Respectfully following the judgment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. DR. T. M. A. PAI FOUNDATION, MANIPAL

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

depreciation can be considered as a legitimate deduction in computing the real income of the assessee on general principles or under section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act. The court rejected the argument on behalf of the revenue that section 32 of the Page 5

BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

11 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants also provides for similar adjustment. However, provisions of section 43A were amended by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1/3/2003 to provide that this adjustment is required to be made only at the time of making payment. In other words, prior to amendment of section 43A, adjustment was required to be made

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raobangalore International Airport Ltd. Administration Block, Bial, Devanahalli Bangalore-560 300. … Appellant Pan:Aabc8973D Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Respondent & Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Bangalore-560 300. … Respondent

11 issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants also provides for similar adjustment. However, provisions of section 43A were amended by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1/3/2003 to provide that this adjustment is required to be made only at the time of making payment. In other words, prior to amendment of section 43A, adjustment was required to be made

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S B S & G FOUNDATION,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for asst

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazthe Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S B S & G Foundation, 502, 2Nd Floor, 5Th ‘C’ Main, 5Th Cross, 2Nd Block, Hrbr Layout, Kalyannagar, Bangalore. . Respondent Pan – Aaatb6131D. Appellant By : Smt. Padmameenakshhi, Jcit Respondent By : Shri R.T Balasubramanyam, C.A Date Of Hearing : 28-9-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 4-10-2017 O R D E R

5. Claim for Depreciation 5.1 In the year under consideration, the assessee had claimed depreciation on fixed assets. On examination thereof, the AO was observed that the assessee had claimed double deduction by first showing the outlay for acquisition of the capital assets as application of income and thereafter, also claimed depreciation on the capital assets. The AO rejected

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly." 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted. The Appellant prays accordingly." 4. Brief facts of the case shows that, assessee Karnataka

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE vs. OHIO UNIVERSITY CHRIST COLLEGE ACADEMY FOR MANAGEMENT EDUCATION, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for both Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 are dismissed

Section 11 and 12. In each assessment year, the assessee is required to prove that it has applied or utilized the entire amount of income towards charitable or religious purposes so as to avail the benefit of tax exemption on such income and, therefore, excess application of income would not come Into picture and the same shall be treated

DY. DIT vs. KARNATAKA JESUIT EDUCATION SOCIETY,

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, and that of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

depreciation. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) stands confirmed. ITA Nos.485, 486, 307 & 308/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 9 ITA Nos.307 & 308/B/2013 7. In these appeals, the assessee has assailed the order of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following common grounds. For the sake of reference, the grounds raised in ITA No.307/B/2013 are extracted hereunder:- “1. The order