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

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. 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

2,36,86,000/-being the expenditure claimed towards workers welfare cess payable to Workers Welfare Board and the AO ought to have noted that the Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961 is applicable only in case of assessee whose income comes under the purview of Section 28 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has erred in disallowing

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

2,36,86,000/-being the expenditure claimed towards workers welfare cess payable to Workers Welfare Board and the AO ought to have noted that the Section 43B of the IT Act, 1961 is applicable only in case of assessee whose income comes under the purview of Section 28 of the IT Act, 1961. The AO has erred in disallowing

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

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

15-16), the\nassessee has contended that provisions of Section 115JB (MAT) will\nnot apply as the assessee is a Nationalized Bank under the Banking\nCompany (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980.\nThe provisions of Section 115JB as amended by the Finance\nAct, 2012 w.e.f. 1.4.2013, inserting clause (a) and clause (b) in sub-\nsection (2) of Section 115JB

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)

15 , 2000, and notice under section 143(2) for framing assessment under section 143(3) could have been issued upto March 31, 2000 and AO issued notice under section 148 when a valid return under section 139(4) was pending, such notice was invalid as no action could have been initiated under section 147 in view of pendency of return

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.

section 2(15) of the Act as well as Circular No. 11 dated 19.12.2008 as the substantial portion of receipts are from the auction sale on the commercial lines, the assessee is to be treated as AOP and calculated the taxable income as below:\n\n1. Gross receipt as per ITR Rs.282,36,24,802/-\n2. Less: Total revenue expenditure

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year failing within the relevant previous year". The scheme of the section 115JB is similar to section 115J and section 115JA. The difference insofar as it is relevant for the present purpose between section 115JB

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.

section 2(15) of the Act as well as Circular No. 11\ndated 19.12.2008 as the substantial portion of receipts are from the\nauction sale on the commercial lines, the assessee is to be treated\nas AOP and calculated the taxable income as below:\n\n1. Gross receipt as per ITR\nRs.282,36,24,802/-\n2. Less: Total revenue expenditure

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

depreciation which have been adopted for preparing such accounts including profit and loss account for such financial year or part of such financial year failing within the relevant previous year". The scheme of the section 115JB is similar to section 115J and section 115JA. The difference insofar as it is relevant for the present purpose between section 115JB

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

15% of Gross Income specified in this section. Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga Page 4 of 42 The expression 'Applied' is explained in Radhasoami 2.3 Satsang Sabha (1954) 25 ITR 473 (Allahabad). Thus, as the Assessee has complied all the Provisions of Sec 11, including Form 10-B Audit Report for the relevant year, it is entitled to Sec.11 exemption