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. 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

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

2 of 31 3. Grounds on reopening: a. Grounds on notice issued under section 148: i. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. ii. The reopening of assessment is void ab initio as the reasons recorded by the learned assessing officer is based on borrowed satisfaction and that there is no independent application

SHRI MAHAVEER CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,ALAGUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALAGUR

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

151/-. 4. The assessee aggrieved with the same, preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that the amount of investment made by the assessee is in terms of provisions of KCS Act and therefore assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the whole of the income. It was further stated

M/S. GITA REFRACTORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the second question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and as a result thereof the appeal fails and dismissed as such

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2005-06

2. Without prejudice, the mandatory sanction under section 151 of the Act,, is not taken in accordance with law and the assessment proceedings ,.a void ab initio on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring loss of Rs.21,19,532/- and paid

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

151, Mount Road, Madras 2. Indian Bank, Indian Chamber Building, Madras-1. ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India & Central Bank of India 46 3. Allahabad Bank, 14, India Exchange Place, Calcutta-1. 4. Dena Bank, DevkaranNanjee Building, 17, Horniman Circle, Fort, Bombay-1. 5. Canara Bank, 112, Jayachamarajendra Road, Bangalore-1. 6. Union Bank of India, 66/80, Apollo

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.” 6.1 In view of the above order of this Tribunal cited (supra), taking a consistent view, we allow this ground taken by the assessee. ITA Nos.937 & 938/Bang/2024 M/s. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore Page 7 of 20 7. Ground No.4 of the appeal is with regard to the applicability of the provisions

M/S. BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Brigade Enterprises Ltd., 26/1, 30Th Floor Wtc, The Dy. Commissioner Of Dr. Rajkumar Road, Income-Tax, Malleshwaram, Circle-2(3), Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. Vs. Bengaluru-560 100. Pan – Aaacb 7459 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri P.C Kincha, C.A Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/08/2019 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Cit(A) For Short Hereinafter"] To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Disallowance Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D 2.1. The Learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle - 2(3), Bangalore ["Ao" For Short Hereinafter] Has Erred In Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 2,02,22,837/- Under Se Tion 14A Comprising Of Disallowa,,Ø-1S. 1,73,98,969/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Ii) & Rs. 28,23,868/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) & The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Said Disallowance.

2) and 142(1) of the act. Upon receipt of the notices, representatives of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called for. The Ld.AO observed that assessee had claimed deduction under section 80IB(10) amounting to Rs.29,03,88,814/-. From the details filed it was observed by the Ld.AO that over a period of time

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. It is submitted that the investments were made out of surplus funds and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the decision of PCIT v. Totagars Co-operative Sale Society 392 ITR 74 wherein it was held that the interest earned on deposits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance of peak cash balance of Rs.1,92,10,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance of peak cash balance of Rs.1,92,10,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance of peak cash balance of Rs.1,92,10,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH , BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance of peak cash balance of Rs.1,92,10,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI SACHIN KAMATH, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

disallowance of peak cash balance of Rs.1,92,10,000/- as unexplained income of the assessee from other sources and passed order u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 28/03/2012. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A). The CIT(A), considered the submissions, grounds of appeal and the findings

M/S. SYNGENE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE- 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

disallowed. Contentions before the ITAT: 3.6 There is no splitting up or reconstruction of business. The following factual aspects demonstrate the independence of SEZ Unit S11: 3.7 Physical location: The EOU unit 1 was situated at 20th KM, Hosur Road whereas the SEZ unit — S 11 is situated at Biocon SEZ, Bommasandra - Jigani Link Road, Bangalore. These two units