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

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

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 in respect of the opening balance ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 15 of 42 of assets as on 1.4.2011 a sum of Rs.510.92 Crores being treated it as capital expenditure without. appreciating the change of accounting policy on the facts and circumstances of the case. Without prejudice, the authorities below are not justified in 34. law in concluding the total

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 in respect of the opening balance ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 15 of 42 of assets as on 1.4.2011 a sum of Rs.510.92 Crores being treated it as capital expenditure without. appreciating the change of accounting policy on the facts and circumstances of the case. Without prejudice, the authorities below are not justified in 34. law in concluding the total

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

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

Section 2(15) excludes any activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or business or any activity of rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business for a cess or fee or any other consideration irrespective or nature of use or application or retention of income such activity. The Centre for E-governance charges tender processing

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

15) of the Act. Having held so, we direct the AO to allow the assessee the benefits of section 11 of the Act while giving effect to this order. Consequently, grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed.” 10. In view of the aforesaid decision of the tribunal, we are of the view that the assessee’s activities

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

Section 2(15) of the Act, there was no dispute that the Assessee was established for charitable purposes. We shall now take a look at the Income and Expenditure Account for the year ended 31.12009 of the Assessee. The income side of the Account shows that the main component of income of the Assessee is derived in the form

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.

15) the assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance. With respect to depreciation

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.

15) the assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and 12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual additions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance. With respect to depreciation

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(1)(ii) of the Act stand fully satisfied. 24.5 The assessee argued that the allegation of the AO that the transaction was structured only to claim depreciation is completely unfounded. The transfer of Finacle and Edge-services businesses by the ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 15

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(1)(ii) of the Act stand fully satisfied. 24.5 The assessee argued that the allegation of the AO that the transaction was structured only to claim depreciation is completely unfounded. The transfer of Finacle and Edge-services businesses by the ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 15

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(1)(ii) of the Act stand fully satisfied. 24.5 The assessee argued that the allegation of the AO that the transaction was structured only to claim depreciation is completely unfounded. The transfer of Finacle and Edge-services businesses by the ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 15

M/S. INDUS TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 32(1)(iia). In the light of the foregoing discussion, the disallowance of additional depreciation is upheld. 6.22 The AO denied 80% depreciation on peripheral components of wind mill such as (1) power evacuation infrastructure and (2) transformer. On these items the AO allowed only normal 15

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

section 254 only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Both the assessee as well as the Department have a right to file an appeal/cross-objections before the Tribunal. The Tribunal should not be prevented from considering questions of law arising in assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. From the above