KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Karnataka Housing The Additional Board, Director Of Income Iii Floor, Cauvery Bhavan, Tax (Exemptions), Kempegowda Road, Range – 17, Bangalore – 560009. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaajk0398K Appellant Respondent

property at market rates and charges interest for belated payments of the installments by the buyers. 11. The Ld.CIT(A) thus held that assessee is squarely hit by the proviso to section 2 (15) and section 13(8) for assessment years under consideration. The Ld.CIT(A) held that assessee cannot claim exemption as envisaged under section

M/S. C R NAGAPPA AND SONS,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CPC), BANGALORE

Accordingly these Grounds raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

12A of the Act. It filed its return of income on 27/09/2015 declaring total income at ‘nil’, after claiming deduction under section 11(1)(a) of the act on the surplus. It had declared its income under the income from house property

M/S. VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 12A(ab) of the Act. ii. On the issue of loan obtained by trustees of the trust from banks and Finance Companies , which was repaid from the sources of the trust, the assessee submitted that trustees have obtained loan from Standard Chartered Bank as assessee trust was not eligible for borrowing from the bank. The said loans from banks

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS RANGE , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

12A is cancelled, the jurisdiction will vest with the regular circle and not the Trust circle on the facts and circumstance of the case. ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 42 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to d. appreciate that the order passed by the present assessing officer is void ab initio and without jurisdiction as once

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE- 1, BANGALORE vs. M/S BANGALORE DEVELOPEMNT AUTHORITY , BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is allowed as indicated above and Revenue’s cross appeal is consequently dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumar

12A is cancelled, the jurisdiction will vest with the regular circle and not the Trust circle on the facts and circumstance of the case. ITA No. 1087/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 42 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to d. appreciate that the order passed by the present assessing officer is void ab initio and without jurisdiction as once

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

12A, as the Commissioner thought it fit to refuse to condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right

SRI MARKANDEYA MAHARSHI PADMASHALI GURUPEETA MAHA SAMSTHANA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) WARD-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

12A, as the Commissioner thought it fit to refuse to condone the long delay caused by the assessee in applying for the registration. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had no other option but to complete the assessments in the status of AOP also closing his eyes towards Section 11 and Section 13. To that extent, the Assessing Officer was right

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DDIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Years : 2010-11

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter and show cause as to why the registration granted under Section\n12A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide 12AA vide\ncertificate No. DIT[E]/12A/Vol I/B-706/W-01/02-03 dated 19.03.2003\nshould not be cancelled for the previous

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter and show cause as to why the registration granted under Section\n12A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide 12AA vide\ncertificate No. DIT[E]/12A/Vol I/B-706/W-01/02-03 dated 19.03.2003\nshould not be cancelled for the previous

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

12A(1)(ac)(i) of\nthe Act.\n6.0 Therefore you are hereby given an opportunity of being heard in this\nmatter and show cause as to why the registration granted under Section\n12A of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax vide 12AA vide\ncertificate No. DIT[E]/12A/Vol I/B-706/W-01/02-03 dated 19.03.2003\nshould not be cancelled for the previous

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

12A of the Act, granted vide order dated 23/05/1996. The assessee filed its return of income, declaring NIL income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to payments made to persons specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. The details of such payments are as follows: Party

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

12A of the Act, granted vide order dated 23/05/1996. The assessee filed its return of income, declaring NIL income after claiming exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS due to payments made to persons specified under Section 13(3) of the Act. The details of such payments are as follows: Party

M/S KUCHALAMBAL CHARITIES,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

12A was also granted. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to ,have appreciated in the circumstances that denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act was opposed to law and uncalled for and accordingly he ought to have refrained from sustaining the order of the AO in this regard. 6. The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have accepted

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(E), CIRCLE - 1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX(E), CIRCLE - 1, BENGALURU vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals by the Assessee are allowed while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

12A of the Act (i)were to carry out any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or (ii)were to carry on any activity of rendering service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. for a cess or fee or any other consideration, then irrespective of the nature of use or application or retention