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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

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

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

119 of the Act, is reproduced here under : (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions

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

M/S. SJR ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2009-10

depreciation claim to the extent of Rs.5,82,576/-. However, the Assessee requested that as this mistake was apparent on the face of the record and was rectifiable by the O under section 154, the proceedings under section 263 should be dropped on this point. 2.2 As regards the aspect of incorrect allowance of deduction under section

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

119(1), any action taken in violation of it renders the subsequent\nproceedings irregular and invalid. The Revenue authority cannot claim\nimmunity by treating the instruction as merely advisory, when judicial\nprecedents have consistently upheld the binding nature of CBDT\ncirculars upon revenue authorities.\n\n14.8 We therefore hold that the last valid panchanama in this case was\ndrawn

SRI. CHERIYAN ABRAHAM,BANGALORE vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

depreciation allowance or any other allowance as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in ss. 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :" 30. Now it should be appreciated that there is vast difference between an assessment made under s. 148 and the assessment made under s. 158BC

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

119(1), any action taken in violation of it renders the subsequent\nproceedings irregular and invalid. The Revenue authority cannot claim\nimmunity by treating the instruction as merely advisory, when judicial\nprecedents have consistently upheld the binding nature of CBDT\ncirculars upon revenue authorities.\n14.8 We therefore hold that the last valid panchanama in this case was\ndrawn

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

119 DTR 49, copy of which is placed at page Nos. 32-40 in support of his contention that loan or advance given to the shareholders or to a concern, under normal circumstances would not qualify as dividend. It was further contended that the jurisdictional High Court has clarified that such loan or advances given to such shareholder