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

disallowance warranted. According to the AO, the profit margins of the company, whose gross receipts is predominantly from the related enterprises only, before payment of salaries to specified persons u's. 13(3) and after payment of the same are in the order of 1763% and 1257% respectively, and this as per AO is not at arm's length

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

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

13 of the\nappeal are general in nature and do not require any separate\nadjudication. Hence, we dismiss the same.\n4. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 of the\nappeal is that the assessment order was passed beyond the statutory\ntime limit prescribed under section 153B of the Act. Hence, the\nassessment order is void

R. SRINIVAS RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

c). OR allow any other relief as the Income Tax (Tribunal) may deem fit.” 3. Ground number one is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. 4. Ground number 2 is regarding disallowance made under section 40A(3) of the act. The brief facts leading to the controversy, are that a search under section

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

13,875/- 09-03-2015 465 9,244/- 09-03-2015 466 12,045/- TOTAL 35,164/- The particulars of these instances were also gathered was based on the consolidated statement as well as the corresponding payment vouchers furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. As submitted earlier, it is reiterated that the basis of arriving at the said

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

13,875/- 09-03-2015 465 9,244/- 09-03-2015 466 12,045/- TOTAL 35,164/- The particulars of these instances were also gathered was based on the consolidated statement as well as the corresponding payment vouchers furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. As submitted earlier, it is reiterated that the basis of arriving at the said

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

13,875/- 09-03-2015 465 9,244/- 09-03-2015 466 12,045/- TOTAL 35,164/- The particulars of these instances were also gathered was based on the consolidated statement as well as the corresponding payment vouchers furnished during the course of assessment proceedings. As submitted earlier, it is reiterated that the basis of arriving at the said

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

13(8). 3.2 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that Explanation 3 to section 11(1) only applies sections 40(a)(ia), 40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income from AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not apply. 3.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition / disallowance under section

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

13(8). 3.2 The learned AO and CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that Explanation 3 to section 11(1) only applies sections 40(a)(ia), 40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income from AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not apply. 3.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition / disallowance under section

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. VISHWACHETAN FOUNDATION, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

3 are regarding disallowance of depreciation. 4. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental Representative and considered the relevant material on record. The assessee is a charitable trust and running educational institutions. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs.45,36,382. The Assessing Officer disallowed

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

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

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

3. The learned CIT (Appeals) is not justified in law in restricting the disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules to Rs.4,00,793 instead of deleting the entire disallowance made by the ld. Assessing Officer under the provisions of section 14A read with rule

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the surplus generated in the hands of the society was brought to tax but denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and accordingly the AO re-drawn the taxable income as detailed below:- ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the surplus generated in the hands of the society was brought to tax but denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and accordingly the AO re-drawn the taxable income as detailed below:- ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the surplus generated in the hands of the society was brought to tax but denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and accordingly the AO re-drawn the taxable income as detailed below:- ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(EXEMTIONS), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 13(2)(c) and 13(2)(g) r.w.s. 13(3) and 13(1)(c) of the Act, the surplus generated in the hands of the society was brought to tax but denial of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and accordingly the AO re-drawn the taxable income as detailed below:- ITA Nos.1973, 1974, 1991 & 1992/Bang/2024 M/s. Sarakki Educational

TOYOTA BOSHOKU AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BIDADI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OR THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 7(1)(1), KORAMANGALA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No. 1539/Bang/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Private Limited., Income Tax, No.41, Bhimenahalli, MN Halli Post, Circle – 7(1)(1), Manchanayakanahalli B.O, Bidadi, Bangalore. Ramanagara. PAN – AAECT 1871 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

13 of 47 ITA Nos.21 to 26/Bang/2024 d. The appellant itself himself liable to be assessed under section 153A of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- i. The search initiated in the case of the appellant is illegal and ultra vires the provisions of section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act; ii. That