SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 11 of the Act. the details of such expenses stand as under: S. No. Particulars Amount 1 Interest On TDS 803723.00 2 Penalty -ESI and Professional Tax 1669730.00 3 Gifts 100750.00 4 DKA Statue Expenses 181075.00 5 Input Tax Credit Write off 12444081,00 Total 3999359.00 9.2 Accordingly, the Ld. AO disallowed

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

11,011/-. In\norder under section 263 of the Act, it was also directed to levy interest\nunder section 234A for late filing of return.\n3.2\nDuring the assessment proceeding in pursuance to order under\nsection 263 of the Act, the assessee submitted that its final accounts\nwere prepared in accordance with the provisions of Karnataka\nCooperative Society

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

disallowed as the appellant assessee failed to file Form 9A within the due date. (ii) Section 11(1) explicitly mandates the filing of Form 9A for the accumulation of income for the charitable purpose to ensure transparency and accountability in the utilization of fund for charitable activities. ITA Nos.2115 & 2116/Bang/2024 Doddaballapur Planning Authority, Doddaballapur Page 4

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the appellant's case.\n9. Without prejudice to the right

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALORE

disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts and in\nthe circumstances of the appellant's case.\n9. Without prejudice to the right

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

4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11 tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section 12, as If the relevant income not so exempt were. The income of an association of persons: Provided that

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

4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11 tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section 12, as If the relevant income not so exempt were. The income of an association of persons: Provided that

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

disallowances made u/s. 43B of the\nAct, raised in ground no. 4, we already held that the income of the assessee\nis eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and therefore the additions /\ndisallowances u/s. 43B would not arise. We, therefore delete the said\nadditions made by the AO which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).\n21. In respect

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

disallowances made u/s. 43B of the\nAct, raised in ground no. 4, we already held that the income of the assessee\nis eligible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and therefore the additions /\ndisallowances u/s. 43B would not arise. We, therefore delete the said\nadditions made by the AO which was confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A).\n21. In respect

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

11. Without prejudice, the impugned addition is bad\nas Learned AO perversely stated that the executive\ndirector in his statement u/s 132(4) admitted the voluntary\ndisclosure of Rs.20 Crores to cover up all the discrepancies\ndetected during the search when no such admission was\nmade by the executive director in his statement u/s 132(4)\ndated 28.02.2020.\n15.12.\nWithout

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

11 is made, then such proceedings shall continue under\nthe provisions of the Act of 1894. It contemplates that such pending\nproceedings, as on the date on which the Act of 2013 came into force shall\ncontinue, and taken to their logical end. However, the exception to Section\n24(1)(b) is provided in Section 24(2) in case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

disallowed the claim of\nthe assessee under section 11 of the Act.\nITA No.1060-1559-1561/Bang/2024 &\n903-1547-1548-1549/Bang/2024\nPage 31 of 53\n19.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A).\n20.\nThe assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the AO\nwas wrong in denying exemption under section 11

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

disallowed the claim of\nthe assessee under section 11 of the Act.\n19.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A).\n20.\nThe assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the AO\nwas wrong in denying exemption under section 11 of the Act on the\nground that registration under section 12AA of the Act was cancelled

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

disallowed the claim of\nthe assessee under section 11 of the Act.\n19.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A).\n20.\nThe assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the AO\nwas wrong in denying exemption under section 11 of the Act on the\nground that registration under section 12AA of the Act was cancelled

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

disallowed the claim of\nthe assessee under section 11 of the Act.\n19.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A).\n20.\nThe assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the AO\nwas wrong in denying exemption under section 11 of the Act on the\nground that registration under section 12AA of the Act was cancelled

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD), KOLAR

disallowed the claim of\nthe assessee under section 11 of the Act.\nITA No.1060-1559-1560-1561/Bang/2024 &\n903-1547-1548-1549/Bang/2024\nPage 31 of 53\n19.\nThe aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A).\n20.\nThe assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the AO\nwas wrong in denying exemption under section 11

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1) , MANGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Soundararajan K.\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2017-18 To\N2020-21\Nm/S. Bharat Beedi Works\Nprivate Limited,\Ngolden Jubilee Building,\Nbharath Bagh,\Nkadri Road,\Nmangaluru – 575 002.\Npan: Aaacb9001B\Nappellant\Nassessee By\Nrevenue By\N: Shri Chythanya .K, Sr.\Nadvocate\N: Shri E. Shridhar, Cit-Dr\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement\Norder\Nper Bench\Nthese Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Orders Of\Nthe Ld.Cit(A) -2, Panaji Dated 30/01/2024 In Respect Of The A.Ys.2017-18,\N2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee For\Neach Of The Assessment Years Are Extracted Hereunder For The Sack Of\Nconvenience.\Npage 2 Of 74\Nita Nos.642 To 645/Bang/2024\N Assessment Year 2017-18:\N“1. The Impugned Orders Of The Lower Authorities Are Not\Njustified In Law & On The Facts & Circumstances Of The\Ncase.\N2. The Impugned Assessment Proceedings & The\Nimpugned Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated\N29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est Since The Notice Under\Nsection 143(2) Dated 13.08.2018 Was Issued Without\Naffixing Any Signature Either Manually Or Digitally.\N3. Without Prejudice To The Above, Impugned Assessment\Nproceedings & The Impugned Assessment Order Under\Nsection 143(3) Dated 29.11.2021 Are Bad & Non-Est\Nbeing Based On The Notice Under Section 143(2) Dated\N13.08.2018 Which Is Vague, Without Of Application Of Mind\Nand Contrary To Section 143(2) & Applicable Board\Ncirculars & Instructions.\N4. As Regards Disallowance Under Section 14A U/S Rule\N8D(2)(Ii):\N4.

4. The Learned AO was not justified in invoking\nSection 14A r/w Rule 8D(2)(ii) without first recording the\nexact expenditure incurred to earn exempt income to justify\nthe impugned disallowance.\nPage 3 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n4. 5. The Learned AO was not justified in making any\ndisallowance under Section 14A r/w Rule

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

disallowance under Section 14A can be made\ntowards the interest expenditure where the Appellant's\ninterest-free funds exceed its interest-free investments.\nFor the above Grounds and for such other Grounds which\nmay be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged\nat the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid\nappeal be allowed.”\n Assessment Year

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

disallowed the claim of\nthe assessee under section 11 of the Act.\n19. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned\nCIT(A).\n20. The assessee before the learned CIT(A) submitted that the AO\nwas wrong in denying exemption under section 11 of the Act on the\nground that registration under section 12AA of the Act was cancelled