SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT 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

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

5-P(LXX-6) of 1968 dated 19/06/1968 issued by the\nCBDT, the income as disclosed in the accounts plus its other income\ncomputed will be the income of the trust for the purpose of section 11(1).\nTherefore, the Ld.AR submitted that the addition of service charges could\nnot be made based on the above said circular. Alternatively

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

5 of the KIAD\nAct. The assessee has been constituted to make provision\nfor orderly establishment and development of Industries in\nsuitable areas in the State of Karnataka. Section 6 of the\nKIAD Act deals with the constitution of the Board of the\nAssessee, which provides that the officers of the State\nGovernment, namely, the Secretary to the Government

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

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. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowing the claim of\nexemption under section 11 while processing the return under section\n143(1) of the Act without appreciating that the adjustments u/s 143(1) are\nonly restricted to arithmetical errors and incorrect claims and there is\nno power to deny exemption u/s 11 for delay in filing audit report while\nprocessing return