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

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

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 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

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. 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

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

depreciation to the extent of Rs.2.05 crores when the CIT(A) has not contradicted the stand taken by the A.O On Credits under Prior Period Expenses: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in allowing the prior period expenses when the assessee is following mercantile system

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

depreciation to the extent of Rs.2.05 crores when the CIT(A) has not contradicted the stand taken by the A.O On Credits under Prior Period Expenses: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) is justified in allowing the prior period expenses when the assessee is following mercantile system

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

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

12A of the Act as charitable organisation under the limb of advancement of any other object of general-public utility. The assessee is engaged in inviting Tenders for various Government organisations projects. The assessee is functioning as nodal agency for e-governance project. It receives tender processing fee, e-auction processing fee, supplier registration fee etc from the participant

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

12A of the Act which was cancelled by the CIT(Exemption), has since been restored by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, by following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemption) Vs. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (ITA No.261/2013 dated 07.11.2014). In that legal view of the matter

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DIT, BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P.Georgebangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore-560020. … Appellant Pan:Aaalb 0060D Vs. Director Of Income-Tax (Exemptions) Bangalore … Respondent

12A of the Act vide order dated 20.6.1988 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption). A notice was issued to the assessee under Section 12AA(3) of the Act calling upon to show cause as to why the said registration should not be cancelled on the ground that case falls under first proviso to Section 2

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

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 31[(ca) where a return of income has not been furnished by the assessee or a return of income has been furnished by him and on the basis of information or document received from the prescribed income-tax authority, under sub-section (2) of section 133C

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE- 1 , MANGALORE vs. M/S HUBLI DHARWAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13 The Assistant M/S. Hubli Dharwad Urban Commissioner Of Development Authority, Income Tax Vs. Navanagar, (Exemptions), Hubbali. Circle – 1, Pan: Aaalh0053J Mangaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Gangadhar .J.M, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019

12A registration, has exceeded the powers granted u/s.251(1)(a), which only allows for confirming, reducing, enhancing or annulling of an assessment?" 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A), Hubli has failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessing Officer, has already disallowed the claim of the assessee as per the provisions of Section 13(8) r.w.s.2

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(E), CIRCLE - 1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention