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

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No :Aaajk0398K\Nappellant\Nrespondent\N\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement\N: 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With\Ndin & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For\Nthe Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax\Nact, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals\Nare Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together And\Ndisposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025\Nfor The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee\Nhas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N1.

13(8) are inapplicable and consequently exemption under section 11 is to be\nallowed as claimed by the appellant.\n\n3. Levy of interest under section 234A and 234B\n6.1 The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234A and\n234B of the Act. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\N\Nita Nos.512 & 513/Bang/2025\N Assessment Year : 2021-22 & 2015-16\N\Nkarnataka Housing Board\N4Th Floor Cauvery Bhavan\Nk.G. Road\Nbangalore 560 009\Nvs.\Ndcit (Exemptions)\Ncircle-1\Nbangalore\N\Npan No:Aaajk0398K\N\Nappellant Respondent\N\Nappellant By : Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Sri K.M. Mahesh, D.R.\N\Ndate Of Hearing : 17.09.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025\N\Norder\N\Nper Keshav Dubey:\N\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of The 1D. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 18.02.2025 Vide Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073418441(1) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 & Vide Order Dated 31.1.2025 With Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1072790068(1) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issues In Both The Appeals Are Similar, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.\N\N2. First, We Take Up Assessee'S Appeal In Ita No.512/Bang/2025 For The Assessment Year 2021-22 For Adjudication. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N\N1. General Ground\N\N1.

13(8) are inapplicable and consequently exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant.\n\n3. Levy of interest under section 234A and 234B\n\n6.1 The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234A and 234B of the Act. On facts and circumstances of the case

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

section 13 provided the recipient of such benefit had offered the same for taxation 6 The CIT(A) has erred in holding that the lease rent paid by the assessee to Eduspark International Pvt Ltd. was at market price as determined by the approved valuer relying on the valuation report submitted by the assessee during appellate proceedings. The Appellate Commissioner

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

Section 13(8) r.w.s.2(15) of the Act, and said disallowance, is irrespective of the assessee having registration u/s.12AA or not" 3. Whether the Ld.CIT(A), Hublli has in ordering the Assessing Officer to reconsider the issue as to whether the assessee is eligible to claim carry forward of earlier year expenditure at the time of giving effect, has exceeded

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

8 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 9 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 10 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 11 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 12 of 37 ITA No.2006 /Bang/2019 Page 13 of 37 07. The ld. CIT (E) issued a show cause notice on 6.6.2019 which was replied to. After considering the reply

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

8 raised by the Assessee. 59. Additional Gr.No.15 & 21 are concerned, the same are in relation to Goodwill claimed by the Assessee as deductible revenue expenditure or in the alternative treat is as commercial right on which the Assessee should be allowed depreciation. 60. As we have already seen, during the relevant assessment year under consideration, the assessee

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

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.

13(8) are inapplicable and consequently exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant. 5. Lapsed Security deposit is not in the nature of income 5.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in assessing Lapsed Security deposits amounting

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.

13(8) are inapplicable and consequently exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant. 5. Lapsed Security deposit is not in the nature of income 5.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in confirming the action of the learned assessing officer in assessing Lapsed Security deposits amounting

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

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

8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third proviso to section 143(3) (all with retrospective effect from 1-4-2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions. B. Authorities, corporations, or bodies established by statute B.1 The amounts or any money whatsoever charged by a statutory corporation, board or any other body

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

13(8) are inapplicable and\nconsequently exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as\nclaimed by the appellant.\n5. Lapsed Security deposit is not in the nature of income\n5.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in confirming the\naction of the learned assessing officer in assessing Lapsed\nSecurity deposits amounting to Rs.18

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with\nthe above directions

13(8) are inapplicable and\nconsequently exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as\nclaimed by the appellant.\n\n5. Lapsed Security deposit is not in the nature of income\n\n5.1 The learned CIT(A)-14, Bangalore has erred in confirming the\naction of the learned assessing officer in assessing Lapsed\nSecurity deposits amounting to Rs.18

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD , BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012 – 13

8 of 19 ITA Nos.951 & 903/Bang/2017 purpose of application is outlined. The funds cannot be distributed or appropriated to any person unless the same is in accordance with the assessee's objectives. The employment utilization and channelizing of funds can be done within the broad framework of the assessee's objectives. Acquisition and development of lands 25. The Acquisition section

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

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.” 17. 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

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

section 32 of the Act from F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to\nA.Y. 2015-16 till the year under consideration in the following manner:\nΑ.Υ. Opening WDV Addition\nTotal assets Depreciation\nat 25% (Rs.)\nClosing WDV\n(Rs.)\nduring\nthe (Rs.)\nyear (Rs.)\n2015\n-16\n412,05,36,13\n2\n412,05,36,13\n2\n103

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

8) which says that provisions of section 10A(6) are equally applicable which bars giving effect to section 32(2) even in later years. (xii) Further section 10AA being part of chapter III is essentially a exemption section though Post amendment, such exemption is available in form of deduction from profits and gains derived from the undertaking, the interpretation needs