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

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

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

3) has to be quashed, thus ordered accordingly. The\nground raised by the Assessee is accordingly allowed\".\n14. In this appeal, we are required to examine whether any substantial\nquestion of law arises for our consideration.\n15. Having regard to the findings returned by the Tribunal, which are\nfindings of fact, in our view, no substantial question of law arises

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

13 ,on 29.03.2014 , which return of income was filed belatedly beyond the time prescribed u/s 139(1) of the 1961 Act. The assessee declared business loss of Rs. 2,15,19,363/- in the return of income filed with Revenue, while the AO in proceedings conducted u/143(3) read with Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act , assessed income

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

13 of 58 prospective, the same is passed without proper application of mind.” This ground is general in nature and calls for no specific adjudication. 16. Gr.No.2 & 3 raised by the Assessee in the grounds of appeal reads as follows:- “2. The assessing Officer as well as DRP grossly erred in ignoring the plea of the appellant with regard

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)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed." 18. Explanation 2 to above section clearly provides three situations where it is deemed that income has escaped assessment and, therefore, initiation of assessment/reassessment proceedings by issue of notice under section 148(1) would be valid. These situations are :— (i) when return of income is not filed

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

13(8) of the Act and treated the income under the\nhead “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession”. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A)\nhad considered the other disallowances and granted partial relief.\n7. The assessee not satisfied with the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), is in\nappeals before this Tribunal.\n8. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

13(8) of the Act and treated the income under the\nhead “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession”. Thereafter the Ld.CIT(A)\nhad considered the other disallowances and granted partial relief.\n7. The assessee not satisfied with the orders of the Ld.CIT(A), is in\nappeals before this Tribunal.\n8. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. VISHWACHETAN FOUNDATION, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

section 11,12, and 13, only application of income during the year is allowable U/s 11 of the Act and depreciation being a notional expenditure is not allowable. 3

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

depreciation on the said items and hence there cannot be any case of disallowance u/s 35E(3)(iii); 13. The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO invoked the provision of section

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

depreciation on the said items and hence there cannot be any case of disallowance u/s 35E(3)(iii); 13. The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO invoked the provision of section

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

depreciation on the said items and hence there cannot be any case of disallowance u/s 35E(3)(iii); 13. The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO invoked the provision of section

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

depreciation on the said items and hence there cannot be any case of disallowance u/s 35E(3)(iii); 13. The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO invoked the provision of section

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

depreciation on the said items and hence there cannot be any case of disallowance u/s 35E(3)(iii); 13. The ld. D.R. submitted that the AO invoked the provision of section

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

3), where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) or has obtained registration at any time under section 12A [as it stood before its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996 (33 of 1996)] and subsequently it is noticed that- 94 [(a) the activities of the trust or the institution

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 (Rs.) 2015 - 412,05,36,13 412,05,36,13

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 (Rs.) 2015 - 412,05,36,13 412,05,36,13

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 (Rs.) 2015 - 412,05,36,13 412,05,36,13

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation was declared at ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore Page 4 of 19 Rs.6,75,81,997/-. The said return of income was thereafter selected for scrutiny with a limited purpose to examine the entitlement to the benefit of section 11 in the light of the transactions under taken with specified persons u/s. 13(3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

depreciation was declared at ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational Society, Bangalore Page 4 of 19 Rs.6,75,81,997/-. The said return of income was thereafter selected for scrutiny with a limited purpose to examine the entitlement to the benefit of section 11 in the light of the transactions under taken with specified persons u/s. 13(3