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. 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

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

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

THE BELTHANGADY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SANGHA LIMITED,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , PUTTUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes

section 80P of the\nAct.\n13.4 Based on the above findings, the AO treated the interest income\namounting to ₹ 39,84,857/- only as Income from other Sources. However, the Ld. AO already disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(1)\nof Rs.31,04,741.00 therefore, the only difference of Rs.8,79,846 was\nadded to the total income

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

164 Affirmed." 21. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 578/241 Taxman 163/72 taxmann.com 64 and the Division Bench of the Gujarat

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

164 Affirmed." 21. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 578/241 Taxman 163/72 taxmann.com 64 and the Division Bench of the Gujarat

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

164 Affirmed." 21. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 578/241 Taxman 163/72 taxmann.com 64 and the Division Bench of the Gujarat

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

164 Affirmed." 21. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 578/241 Taxman 163/72 taxmann.com 64 and the Division Bench of the Gujarat

SRI JIHVESHWARA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2)(5), BANGALORE

In the result, this issue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

164 Affirmed." 21. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Totgar's Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. (supra) was followed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of State Bank of India v. CIT [2016] 389 ITR 578/241 Taxman 163/72 taxmann.com 64 and the Division Bench of the Gujarat

M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15

section 2(47) of the Act". Page 2 of 19 6. The assumption made is contrary to the provisions of law and the findings of the Apex court. 7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly: a. Allow the claim

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

164-SC-IT. Therefore, the\nIncome-tax Act must recognize such banking company for the purpose\nsection 115JB in order to make the provisions applicable.\n= (vi) When the charging section and the computing provision\ntogether would constitute an integrated code. In case charging section\ndoes not apply then the computation section fails. CIT vs B C Shrinivas\nSetty

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

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 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, 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

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

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the deduction of ₹54,61,28,031 claimed by the assessee under section 11(2) of the Act. 19. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that its total bank balance as on 31-03-2021 was ₹ 160,88,73,365, which includes fixed deposits . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

disallowed the deduction of ₹54,61,28,031 claimed by the assessee under section 11(2) of the Act. 19. Aggrieved by this decision, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned CIT(A) and submitted that its total bank balance as on 31-03-2021 was ₹ 160,88,73,365, which includes fixed deposits . ITA No.1075 & 1076/Bang/2024 Page

THE BELTHANGADY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL SANGHA LIMITED,BELTHANGADY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 80P of the Act. 13.4 Based on the above findings, the AO treated the interest income amounting to ₹ 39,84,857/- only as Income from other Sources. However, the Ld. AO already disallowed the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(1) of Rs. 31,04,741.00 therefore, the only difference of Rs. 8,79,846 was added to the total