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

b) of section 11(4AA of the IT Act. As the maximum marginal rate of tax under the new proviso to section 164(2) applies to the whole or a part of the relevant income of a charitable or religious trust which forfeits exemption by virtue of the provisions of the IT Act in regard to investment pattern

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

B. R. Sudheendra, CA Respondent by : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 09.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Since common issues

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

B. R. Sudheendra, CA Respondent by : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 09.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Since common issues

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

B. R. Sudheendra, CA Respondent by : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 09.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2019 O R D E R Per Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of CIT(A)-1, Bangalore, for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. Since common issues

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

disallows certain expenditure\nincurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other\nincome which is includable in the total income for the purposes of\nchargeability to the tax. It is equally well settled that expenditure is a\npay out, in order to attract applicability of section 14-A of the Act, there\nhas

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

B”, BANGALORE Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice-President & Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member ITA No.1590/Bang/2018: Asst.Year 2013-2014 The Income Tax Officer Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy Ward 6(2)(3) Prop: Sri Krishnachandra Vs. Bengaluru. Convention Hall, No.26, S.M.Road, Jalahalli West Bangalore – 560 058. PAN: ACOPN3645C. (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.41/Bang/2019: Asst.Year 2013-2014 Sri.P.N.Krishnamurthy The Income Tax Officer Prop: Sri Krishnachandra Ward 6(2

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

B’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Karnataka State Cooperative Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Agriculture and Rural Development Ward – 5(2)(1), Bank, Bengaluru. Post Box 1811, Tippu Palace Road, Tippu Fort, Chamrajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. PAN – AAAAT 7773 N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Bhardwaj

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

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

b) Section 14A(1) is enacted to ensure that only expenses incurred in respect of earning taxable income are allowed; (c) The principle of apportionment of expenses is widened by section 14A to include even the apportionment of expenditure between taxable and nontaxable income of an indivisible business; (d) The basic principle of taxation is to tax net income. This

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. K J FOUNDATION, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assistant Commissionerof K.J. Foundation Income Tax 58/1 Thubarahalli Room No. 606, 6Th Floor Behind Sriram, Samruthi Vs. Unity Bldg. Annex Apartments, Whitefield Road P. Kalinga Rao Road Karnataka 500067 Karnataka 560027 Pan – Aabtk1178N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish R. Mody, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K., J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘Cit(A)’) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case 2 The Cit(A) Has Erred In Observing That During The F.Y 2016- 17, The Assessee Had Paid Lease Rent Of Rs.9,58,28,710/-Only To Eduspark International Pvt. Ltd. Which Was A Specified Person U/S.13(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & That Such Payment

disallowance of the claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Act is in order when the trust had complied with all the conditions prescribed under the statute. Before going into the issue, first we will take a look on the findings given by the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) had given the following findings: - “5.1 In this case

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.

B' BENCH : BANGALORE\nBEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER\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

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid

M/S. CENTURY SILICON CITY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2)(1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid

CENTURY SHELTORS,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

13,90,665/- 2. 2014-15 (-) 21,94,64,054/- 11,47,14,845/- 3. 2015-16 (-) 24,58,17,366/- 12,85,55,078/- Total 33,46,60,580/- 3. In these cases, assessment orders were framed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] disallowing the interest on borrowed capital paid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.656, 667, 668/Bang/2024 Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21 ITO, Vs. M/s. Brahmavara Vyavasaya Seva, Ward - 1, Head Office Unnathi, Brahmavar Udupi. Udupi Taluk, Udupi – 576 213. PAN: AAAAB 2992 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.Nos.10, 11, 12/Bang/2024 (in ITA Nos.656

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

13. From bare reading of Section 263 of the Act and the Explanation thereto introduced through the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, we note that Explanation -2, is a deeming provision. The well settled position of law is that while construing a deeming provision, it has to be strictly interpreted and that the legal fiction should not be stretched beyond

M/S STERLING URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal are decided as follows: Ground

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.3282/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Sterling Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.8, Level-5, Prestige Nebula, Circle -6(1)(2), Cubbon Road, Bengaluru. Opp. To Income Tax Office Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaacf 9183 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ramasubramaniyan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 12.10.2018 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-6(1)(2), Bengaluru, Passed U/S. 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 On 12Th June 2002 Under The Name & Style “Foundation Habitats (India) Private Limited”. The Company Has Been Converted As A Spv In The Year 2006. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Activities Relating To Real Estate

disallowance, on account of any expenditure being excessive or unreasonable having regard to the fair market value, shall be made in respect of a specified domestic transaction referred to in section 92BA, if such transaction is at arm’s length price as defined in clause (ii) of section 92F. (b) The persons referred to in clause (a) are the following