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. 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

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

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

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves\nout an exception from the charitable purpose of\nadvancement of any other object of general public\nutility and that exception is limited to activities in the\nnature of trade, commerce or business or any activity\nof rendering any service in relation to any trade,\ncommerce or business

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

Section 2(15) of the said Act would be that it carves\nout an exception from the charitable purpose of\nadvancement of any other object of general public\nutility and that exception is limited to activities in the\nnature of trade, commerce or business or any activity\nof rendering any service in relation to any trade,\ncommerce or business

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

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.

15) and section 13(8) are inapplicable and consequently exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant.\n\n4. Non accounting of Receipts of Maintenance Charges and Expenses in relation to National Games Village\n\n5.1 The learned Assessing officer has erred in making an additional of Rs.3,65,00,000 on\n\naccount

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.

15)\nand section 13(8) are inapplicable and consequently exemption under section 11 is to be\nallowed as claimed by the appellant.\n\n4. Non accounting of Receipts of Maintenance Charges and Expenses in relation to\nNational Games Village\n5.1 The learned Assessing officer has erred in making an additional of Rs.3,65,00,000 on\naccount of recording

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

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

15)\nthe assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and\n12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual\nadditions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance.\nWith respect to depreciation

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

15)\nthe assessee become ineligible for benefit under section 11 and\n12 of the Act. Thereafter he referred to the various individual\nadditions and dismissed the ground related to disallowance.\nWith respect to depreciation