KOME KORAVADI VIVIDODDESHA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, UDUPI

disallowed and income was assessed at Rs.\n11,64,663/- only. Against the said assessment, the assessee preferred\nan appeal before the learned CIT(A).\n3.1\nSubsequently, the order under section 263 of the Act was passed\nproposing to disallow/assess interest expenses/provision of Rs.\n7,04,188/- which form the total interest expenses of Rs.35,11

DODDABALLAPUR PLANNING AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11(1) of the Act and this amount has been disallowed as the appellant assessee failed to file Form

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 11 of the Act and computed the assessee’s income in accordance with the normal provisions applicable to an assessee. Furthermore, while computing the assessee’s income, the AO disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 11 of the Act and computed the assessee’s income in accordance with the normal provisions applicable to an assessee. Furthermore, while computing the assessee’s income, the AO disallowed

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowances under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules amounting to Rs.1,01,60,000/- for Assessment ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 11

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowances under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules amounting to Rs.1,01,60,000/- for Assessment ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 11

M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowances under section 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules amounting to Rs.1,01,60,000/- for Assessment ITA Nos.528 to 530/Bang/2018 Page 11

M/S. HICAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE- 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section

M/S. MOBILY INFOTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). As the entire interest expenditure of Rs. 78,11,581 was disallowed under section

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs.21,03,510 being interest calculated at the rate of 10% on the increase in work-in-progress amounting to Rs.2,10,35,105 (i.e. Rs.9,21,96,773 minus Rs.7,11

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant. 4. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B 4.1 The learned

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant. 4. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B 4.1 The learned

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed\nas infructuous

11 and 12 of the Act. Since, the exemption\nunder these sections was denied, the deduction claimed for donations as\napplication of income in the return was also disallowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

11,127 was disallowed by the ld. AO. 29. The assessee is aggrieved and went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessing officer has erred in disallowing deduction claimed under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

11,127 was disallowed by the ld. AO. 29. The assessee is aggrieved and went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessing officer has erred in disallowing deduction claimed under section

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

Disallowance of set apart /accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) i) The CIT(A) has erred in allowing exemption u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% of the income for set apart/accumulation without considering the fact that the assessee has failed to fulfil the conditions for accumulation of 85% of income as stipulated u/s 11(2) read with section

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

Disallowance under section 14A of Rs 11,30,403 b. Disallowance under section 37 of Rs 28,03,850 c. Disallowance

JUPITER CAPIAL P. LTD. vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No. 60/Bang/2012 and 253/Bang/2014 of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessee’S Appeal

Disallowance under section 14A of Rs 11,30,403 b. Disallowance under section 37 of Rs 28,03,850 c. Disallowance