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

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 or use of the trust property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that

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

disallowed the entire amount spent towards charitable purposes and subjected the entire income to tax. The said order was challenged before the CIT(A) on the ground that the application of provisions 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g)) of the Act to deny the deduction is not correct since there is no payment of any remuneration to the trustee

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

disallowance of Rs.8,75,000 towards unsecured loan and deciding the matter based on additional evidences submitted by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not produce any documents during the assessment proceedings which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether

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

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

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 principle applies even for the purpose of section 14A and expenses towards non-taxable income must be excluded; (e) Once

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

2(15) and section 13(8) are inapplicable and the appellant is a genuine charitable organization. Consequently, exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant. 3. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B 3.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess, 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.

2(15) and section 13(8) are inapplicable and the appellant is a genuine charitable organization. Consequently, exemption under section 11 is to be allowed as claimed by the appellant. 3. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B 3.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess, labour welfare fund

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

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

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. 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. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI 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

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 INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

13 satisfaction by the AO with rule 8D(2)(iii) Without prejudice, ACIT v Vireet Investment (P) Ltd [2017] 82 taxmann.com 415 – only actual dividend yielded investments should be considered under rule 8D(2)(iii) Karnataka High Court in assessee’s own case Protective disallowance under section vide order dated 20.9.2021 in ITA No 40(a)(i) in respect

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

c) served upon him in an improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment.] 11.3 After going through the above provisions, we take a note of the fact that the reply letter dated 20/05/2019 was filed by the assessee requesting to treat

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2): Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under section (1) of section 142, the assessing officer shall,- (i) Where he has reason to believe that nay claim of loss exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying part5iculars of such claim

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

2): Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under section (1) of section 142, the assessing officer shall,- (i) Where he has reason to believe that nay claim of loss exemption, deduction, allowance or relief made in the return is inadmissible, serve on the assessee a notice specifying part5iculars of such claim

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

disallowance of the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act in respect of flats which are more than 1500 sq.ft. of built-up area. ITA Nos.1275 & 1323/Bang/2014 M/s.Brigade Enterprises Ltd., Page 13 of 25 The learned Departmental Representative, however, supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. Having gone through the records and having perused the decision of this Tribunal