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 capital expenses may be considered as application of income. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the payments were made to individuals without . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 20 sufficient proof that these were incurred for charitable purposes. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's disallowance. 5

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

5. Ground no.4 is against disallowance under section 35D 5.1 The Ld.AR submitted that Ld.AO disallowed 1/5TH of the total expenditure incurred towards initial public offer at the time of conversion of Brigade Enterprises Pvt.Ltd., to Brigade Enterprises Ltd., treating it to be not eligible under section 35D Page 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

5. The ld. ADDL/JCIT(A) Panchkula dismiss the appeal of the assessee on the following grounds/Observations- (i) It is noted that the appellant is a Charitable Trust and has claimed exemption at Rs.5,80,44,590/- under section 11(1) of the Act and this amount has been disallowed

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under:- “The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner of Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation has also been denied to the assessee on wrong basis by the authorities below that an opportunity of cross examines needs to be given only when third party is involved or a party not known

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

5 of 23 7. Given the above, the Assessing Officer (AO) was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act had been violated, as the assessee trust had extended benefits to specified persons. Consequently, the AO denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of the Act and computed the assessee

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

5 of 23 7. Given the above, the Assessing Officer (AO) was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) of the Act had been violated, as the assessee trust had extended benefits to specified persons. Consequently, the AO denied the exemption claimed by the assessee under Section 11 of the Act and computed the assessee

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 36(1)(vii) & (viia) and Rule 6ABA and observed that the emphasis is on the advances made and not advances outstanding as on 31st March, 2014 and deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is only on the incremental advances. After considering the reply of the assessee in response to notice u/s. 142(1), the AO recalculated disallowance

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 36(1)(vii) & (viia) and Rule 6ABA and observed that the emphasis is on the advances made and not advances outstanding as on 31st March, 2014 and deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) is only on the incremental advances. After considering the reply of the assessee in response to notice u/s. 142(1), the AO recalculated disallowance

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

5 of 22 assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.02.2013, wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.43,48,83,703/-; which, inter alia, included disallowances of Rs.4,41,216/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and of Rs.12,38,740/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), totally amounting

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

5 of 22 assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.02.2013, wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.43,48,83,703/-; which, inter alia, included disallowances of Rs.4,41,216/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and of Rs.12,38,740/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), totally amounting

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

5 of 22 assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 26.02.2013, wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.43,48,83,703/-; which, inter alia, included disallowances of Rs.4,41,216/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(ii) and of Rs.12,38,740/- under section 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii), totally amounting

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

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

5. Ground No.3 & 4 are in respect of the disallowance made under Section 14A on account of indirect administrative expenses under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules. During the year under consideration the assessee has earned an dividend income of Rs.63,477, the Assessing Officer apart from the disallowance under Section 14A on account of interest expenditure

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

section 11(5), and to be utilised before 31.03.2020. d) Copy of Form 10 which had been filed manually before the jurisdictional assessing officer on 23.08.2015. e) Copies of fixed deposit receipts amounting to Rs 7,00,00,000/- with ING Vysya Bank Raichur, invested during financial year 2014-15, as proof of application of income u/s 11(2) r.w.s

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

section 36(1)(iii), it was stated that the disallowance of Rs. 20,11,358 will be enforced based on the findings in favour of the Assessee (if any) by the appellate authorities at a later stage. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed the appeal to CIT(A). 5

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

section 36(1)(iii), it was stated that the disallowance of Rs. 20,11,358 will be enforced based on the findings in favour of the Assessee (if any) by the appellate authorities at a later stage. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed the appeal to CIT(A). 5

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

11(1) only applies sections 40(a)(ia), 40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income from AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not apply. 4.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 1,00,000, labour welfare fund

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

11(1) only applies sections 40(a)(ia), 40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income from AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not apply. 4.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 1,00,000, labour welfare fund

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowing the claim made u/s 54 of the Act. The said assessment order was subject matter of appeal before the ld. CIT(A), which is pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, the ld. PCIT examined the assessment records by invoking the provisions of section 263 f the Act and observed that the assessee's property situated at Bommanahalli, Bangalore

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 11(5) of the Act by investing the accumulation made u/s 11(2) of the Act in the specified Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 584 & 563/Bang/2022 investments has rightly claimed the accumulation u/s 11(2) of the Act and same is to be allowed to the Appellant. 3. The denial of credit for TDS being erroneous, both