KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

5)(vi) of the Act, by the DIT(Exemption), Bangalore vide order dated 26.11.2009. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment 2 ITA Nos.1265 & 1266/Bang/2024 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust year 2012-13 on 21.03.2013 declaring income of rupees Nil. The return was processed by Revenue under Section 143(1) on 31.03.2013.The case

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. SRI. J. KRISHNA PALEMAR, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

5) The property at Katipalla Village, Mangalore is described in the Gift Deed dt. 121-2009 as a property consisting of 10.2 acre of land with a building bearing No. Katipalla 9-27A, 27A-1 & 27B. The assessee has explained it as an Agricultural Property in the Balance-sheet. It does not change the character of the property 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

property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that Act, the said rate will not apply: to the business profits of such trusts which are otherwise chargeable to fax. In other word, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1) (c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum

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

property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that Act, the said rate will not apply: to the business profits of such trusts which are otherwise chargeable to fax. In other word, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1) (c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

5) of the Act. In other words, it requires that investment or deposits of funds, if made has to be made in the prescribed modes. There was no restriction in keeping the cash in physical form by assessee without making any investment and it cannot lead to conclusion that there was no violation of section

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

house property and other sources filed return of income electronically for the assessment year 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.54,34,810/-. A survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] was conducted on 2.3.2015 at the business premises of the assessee. During the survey, the assessee was asked to explain the present

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.

properties amounting to Rs.3,05,66,25,039/-. 2.7 The Ld.AO was of the opinion that nexus has not been established between the advancing of funds in the business interest of the assessee. The Ld.AO disallowed the interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the act at Rs.5,32,41,623/- for lack of commercial expediency. 2.8 The Ld.AO during

M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Houses of Parliament.” 43. The enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 105 consists of the following thirteen Parliamentary enactments, namely: “THE FOURTH SCHEDULE [See section 105] LIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT 1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

M/S CESSNA GARDEN DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Lalit Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11

section 80IA of the Act and government schemes for development of Industrial Parks in the country. SLPs filed in this case by the Department have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In a subsequent judgment dated 30.04.2014 in ITA No 76 & 78/2012 in the case of CIT vs. Information Technology Park Ltd.2, the Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The Hon'ble Pr. CIT comes to an erroneous conclusion that the Assessing Officer has not made proper inquiry on the exemption claimed, while in fact the AO had made an inquiry and had applied his mind to th facts and circumstances of the case. The correspondences filed with the Assessing Officer on various dates stand as a testimony

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

11. The learned CIT(A) has erred, in law and on facts, by disregarding the fact that the Appellant has offered the gift of shares received from ROl for taxes under "income from other sources" at a highest tax rate of 30% under Section 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act, thus ignoring the fact that the intention was never

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

property being original asset was sold on 3rd, March, 2011 , while the new residential house was purchased on 28th February, 2013. 10.2 The ld. JCIT-DR submitted that double deduction is not permissible. The intent of law is that the double deduction is not allowed under section 24(b) towards interest paid on housing loan as well while computing cost

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

5 Property @ JP Nagar 2,67,07,891 2,67,07,891 6 Property@ OMBR Layout 19,56,591 19,56,591 3.2 The AO accepted the details of immovable properties furnished by the assessee, however, observed that the assessee has shown rental income from only one let out property which is located at Bull Temple Road on which

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

11 of 15 Section 23. (1) For the purposes of section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be— (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or (b) where the property or any part of the property is let and the actual rent received or receivable

S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the vacancy allowance under Section 23(1)(c) of the Act is available only when the house property is already let out and it remain vacant during the year under consideration. Thus the learned Departmental Representative has submitted that when the property

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

Housing and Urban Development Department, the Commission for Industrial Development and Direcotr of Industries and Commerce, Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd., Chairman, Karnataka Pollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and the Managing Director, Karnataka Financial State Corporation are ex- officio members

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

Housing and Urban Development Department, the Commission for Industrial Development and Direcotr of Industries and Commerce, Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Ltd., Chairman, Karnataka Pollution Control Board, the Director of Town Planning, the Managing Director, Karnataka State Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and the Managing Director, Karnataka Financial State Corporation are ex- officio members

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

5)] dated 03 May, 2006. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority was a body corporate, constituted under the Bihar Industrial Areas Development Authority Act, 1974, to provide for planned development of industrial area and promotion of industries. It had perpetual succession, a common seal, power to acquire, hold and dispose off properties, to contract, to sue or be sued and maintained