UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

12A", "Section 13 clause 8"], "issues": "Whether the assessee's activities constitute trade, commerce, or business, thus attracting the proviso to Section 2(15) and disallowing

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the claim for exemption under Section 10(20) of the Act and determined the income from business operations and other sources at ₹ 4,30,08,736/- and ₹ 3,64,36,418/-, respectively. Thus, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹7,94,45,154/-, as opposed to the NIL income declared by the assessee

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY ,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD-3, , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

disallowed the claim for\nexemption under Section 10(20) of the Act and determined the income\nfrom business operations and other sources at ₹ 4,30,08,736/- and ₹\n3,64,36,418/-, respectively. Thus, the AO assessed the total income of\nthe assessee at ₹7,94,45,154/-, as opposed to the NIL income declared\nby the assessee

NEKRTC PASSENGER ACCIDENT RELIEF FUND TRUST,GULBARGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

disallowed. 4. Before the Tribunal, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that both the assessee as well as NEKRTC, Gulbarga are registered under Section 12A

SHRI. BHADRESHWAR EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST,BIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION , GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

section 12A(1)(b) of the Act, the audit report in form No.10B is required to be filed one month prior to the due date for furnishing the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Considering the facts and legal position, the Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram held that the CPC has rightly disallowed

MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY,RAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAMNAGAR

disallowed the claim for\nexemption under Section 10(20) of the Act and determined the income\nfrom business operations and other sources at ₹ 4,30,08,736/- and ₹\n3,64,36,418/-, respectively. Thus, the AO assessed the total income of\nthe assessee at ₹7,94,45,154/-, as opposed to the NIL income declared\nby the assessee

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance in case of cash payments exceeding the stipulated limit coupled with the fact that cash payments are made due to business expediency and being genuine transaction and the parties are identifiable, provisions of section 40A(3) cannot be applied. Accordingly, we are inclined to delete the addition made on this count. 5.3 There are one more payment

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance in case of cash payments exceeding the stipulated limit coupled with the fact that cash payments are made due to business expediency and being genuine transaction and the parties are identifiable, provisions of section 40A(3) cannot be applied. Accordingly, we are inclined to delete the addition made on this count. 5.3 There are one more payment

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

disallowance in case of cash payments exceeding the stipulated limit coupled with the fact that cash payments are made due to business expediency and being genuine transaction and the parties are identifiable, provisions of section 40A(3) cannot be applied. Accordingly, we are inclined to delete the addition made on this count. 5.3 There are one more payment

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

12A of the Act w.e.f. 2015-16 and directed the ld. AO to invoke the provisions of section 115T of the Act in accordance with law by order passed on 13.8.2019 u/s 12AA (4) of The Act, against which the assessee is aggrieved. 09. The ld. AR filed two paper books containing 318 pages and 145 pages along with written

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS RANGE , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

12A is cancelled, the jurisdiction will vest with the regular circle and not the Trust circle on the facts and circumstance of the case. ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 42 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to d. appreciate that the order passed by the present assessing officer is void ab initio and without jurisdiction as once

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

12A is cancelled, the jurisdiction will vest with the regular circle and not the Trust circle on the facts and circumstance of the case. ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 42 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to d. appreciate that the order passed by the present assessing officer is void ab initio and without jurisdiction as once

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

disallowing the donation and other expenses of Rs. 36,21,782.00 only. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust, duly recognized and registered under section 12A

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

disallowing the donation and other expenses of Rs. 36,21,782.00 only. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee is a charitable trust, duly recognized and registered under section 12A

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

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

disallowed the same only on the ground that since the assessee was granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

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

disallowed the same only on the ground that since the assessee was granted registration under section 12A of the Act w.e.f

RAGIGUDDA SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAKTA MANDALI TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2. (EXEMPTION) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

disallowance of set-off of brought forward excess application from earlier years as follows: The explanation (5) was introduced to section 11 only by o Finance Act, 2021 where the set-off was not permitted w.e.f 1 April 2021. Explanation 5.—For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that the calculation of income required

RAGIGUDDA SRI PRASANNA ANJANEYA SWAMY BHAKTA MANDALI TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2. (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

disallowance of set-off of brought forward excess application from earlier years as follows: The explanation (5) was introduced to section 11 only by o Finance Act, 2021 where the set-off was not permitted w.e.f 1 April 2021. Explanation 5.—For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that the calculation of income required

SRI SAI EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,CHITAMANI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION) WARD-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadavassessment Year : 2012-13

12A of the Act but in the impugned assessment year it claimed exemption under section 10(23C)(IIIad) of the Act but this aspect was not examined by the AO and he disallowed