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

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

13. Without prejudice to the above, even if the\nimpugned disallowance was taken to be under Section\n40A(3), the same is unsustainable as such disallowance\ncan be made only in respect of clearly identified\ntransactions and not on the basis of surmise, conjuncture\nand ad hoc estimate, particularly when the tax auditors\nhave not pointed out any violation

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

disallowance to\nRs. 13.46 lakhs which was\nsustained by Tribunal - On\nappeal to High Court it was\nfound that Assessing\nOfficer had wrongly taken\ninto account investments\nother than investments\nmade to earn exempt\nincome\nCommissioner\n(Appeals) had correctly\napplied formula prescribed\nunder rule 8D(2)(iii)\nWhether thus, no\nsubstantial question of law\narose for consideration\nHeld

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX vs. MYMUL RAITHA KALYANA TRUST, SIDDARATHANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA\nNo

c)", "Section 13(2)", "Section 13(3)", "Section 12AA", "Section 80G", "Section 234B", "Rule 46A" ], "issues": "Whether the assessee's activities constitute charitable purposes under Section 2(15) and are eligible for exemption under Section 11. Whether the expenditure on mementoes is to be disallowed

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

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

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

2(15) and section 13(8) are\ninapplicable and the appellant is a genuine charitable\norganization. Consequently, exemption under section 11 is\nto be allowed as claimed by the appellant.\n3. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B\n3.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions /\ndisallowance under section 43B in respect of slum\nimprovement cess, labour welfare fund

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

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

2(15) and section 13(8) are\ninapplicable and the appellant is a genuine charitable\norganization. Consequently, exemption under section 11 is\nto be allowed as claimed by the appellant.\n3. Addition / Disallowance under section 43B\n3.1 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions /\ndisallowance under section 43B in respect of slum\nimprovement cess, labour welfare fund

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

13. Without prejudice to the above, even if the\nimpugned disallowance was taken to be under Section\n40A(3), the same is unsustainable as such disallowance\ncan be made only in respect of clearly identified\ntransactions and not on the basis of surmise, conjuncture\nand ad hoc estimate, particularly when the tax auditors\nhave not pointed out any violation

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

section\n80P(2)(a)/(d) of the Act.\n2.7 The Ld.AO was thus of the opinion that assessee is into\nBanking business and principle of Mutuality did not satisfy. He\nplaced reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\nof Citizens Cooperative Society Ltd., reported in (2017) 397 ITR 1.\n2.8 Aggrieved by the orders