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. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU 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

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

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

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

BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgem/S.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 29Th & 30Th Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaacb7459F Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-11, Bangalore. … Respondent

c)Rule 8D of the Rules applies only for AY 08-09 and subsequent Assessment years and not to earlier Assessment Years. 20. In the present case the AY is 2008-09 and therefore Rule 8D of the Rules are applicable. The Assessee made a claim before the AO that no expenditure was incurred for earning income which does

SRI. SHAMBULAL G CHHABRA vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT Date of hearing : 26.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019 O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-V, Bangalore, dated 01.05.2013 for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under: 2.1 The assessee

M/S UDBHAV CONSTRUCTIONS,UDUPI vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, while disallowance of Rs

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijay Pal Raoi.T.A No.828/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Udbhav Constructions, 3Rd Floor, Maithri Complex, Udupi – 576 101 .. Appellant Pan : Aabfu3330N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Udupi .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. Ramasubramanian, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 09.03.2016 Pronounced On : 30.03.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

119 of the Act, is reproduced here under : (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions

M/S. IBM INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

C. Certify that the actions of the Company are in accordance with FEMA and relevant guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. Oct 2013 DB submitted DHS audit report (copy enclosed as Annexure 8) to RBI on the process review, sample testing, transaction audit and FEMA guidelines review. Dec 2013 DB submitted a letter to RBI stating, inter-alia, that

DCIT vs. M/S SUBRAMANYA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS COMPANY LTD.,,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

section was invoked AO was duty bound to make a disallowance under every clause of Rule 8D and 5 ITA No.404(B)/13 & C.O.No.89(B)/13 could not limit himself to clause(iii) thereof, Thus, according to learned DR, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made under Rule 8D(2)(ii). 7. Per contra, and in support

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

c) the Assessing Officer passed the order which is not in accordance with any order, directions or instructions issued by the CBDT u/s 119 of the Act, (d) the Assessing Officer passed the order which is not in accordance to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which is prejudicial

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

119 ITR 996 (SC). wherein it is held that, opinion of an audit party cannot be basis for reopening and on the same lines opinion of investigation wing can also be not a basis for reopening U/s.147 of the act. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law laid down in the following

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

119 ITR 996 (SC). wherein it is held that, opinion of an audit party cannot be basis for reopening and on the same lines opinion of investigation wing can also be not a basis for reopening U/s.147 of the act. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law laid down in the following

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

119 ITR 996 (SC). wherein it is held that, opinion of an audit party cannot be basis for reopening and on the same lines opinion of investigation wing can also be not a basis for reopening U/s.147 of the act. 8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law laid down in the following

UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. United Breweries Limited UB City, UB Tower, Level 4 JCIT No.24, Vittal Mallya Road Special Range-7 Vs. Bangalore 560 001 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACU6053C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. United Breweries Limited

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.345/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. United Breweries Limited UB City, UB Tower, Level 4 JCIT No.24, Vittal Mallya Road Special Range-7 Vs. Bangalore 560 001 Bangalore PAN NO : AAACU6053C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. United Breweries Limited

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

disallowances, and other determinations made by the AO on facts and Law, however, for an appeal against a revision order u/s 263 of the Act, the Tribunal is essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT’s conclusion on “erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

disallowance of the same does not arise. On the third reason with respect brokerage and commission expenses, the assessee submitted that the said expenses constitute only 2.16% of the total expenditure incurred by the assessee and it is not practically possible to scrutinise the entire books of account at the time of assessment. The assessee in this regard also submitted