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

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

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT 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

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

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized orrequisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information. contained therein, relates to, a person other than th.e person referred to in section 153A, then

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

property in a new residential house is eligible for claim of exemption under section 54 F of the Act, and ought to have given all the benefits and exemptions available as per the statute, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, to the right to seek waiver as per the parity of reasoning of the decision

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 34 against the assessee as the karta of a HUF. Further, the High Court had not expressed its opinion on the question based upon section 25 of the 1992 Act. In the result, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeal was remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

2) passed in F.No.6A/ Centralisarion /CIT-IV/2012-13 dt.3.7.2012 of CIT, Bangalore-IV, Bangalore.\n\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\n\nPage 14 of 77\n\nDuring the course of Search, several documents relating to grant of Development Rights\nCertificate (DRC)/TDR to DCPL and subsequent sale of DRC/TDR to various parties were found.\nIt was found that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

2) passed in F.No.6A/ Centralisarion /CIT-IV/2012-13 dt.3.7.2012 of CIT, Bangalore-IV, Bangalore.\n\nPage 14 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nDuring the course of Search, several documents relating to grant of Development Rights\nCertificate (DRC)/TDR to DCPL and subsequent sale of DRC/TDR to various parties were found.\nIt was found that the assessee

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

2) passed in F.No.6A/ Centralisarion /CIT-IV/2012-13 dt.3.7.2012 of CIT, Bangalore-IV, Bangalore.\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nPage 14 of 77\nDuring the course of Search, several documents relating to grant of Development Rights\nCertificate (DRC)/TDR to DCPL and subsequent sale of DRC/TDR to various parties were found.\nIt was found that the assessee has sold

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

2) passed in F.No.6A/ Centralisarion /CIT-IV/2012-13 dt.3.7.2012 of CIT, Bangalore-IV, Bangalore.\n\nPage 14 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nDuring the course of Search, several documents relating to grant of Development Rights\nCertificate (DRC)/TDR to DCPL and subsequent sale of DRC/TDR to various parties were found.\nIt was found that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

2) passed in F.No.6A/ Centralisarion /CIT-IV/2012-13 dt.3.7.2012 of CIT, Bangalore-IV, Bangalore.\n\nPage 14 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\n\nDuring the course of Search, several documents relating to grant of Development Rights\nCertificate (DRC)/TDR to DCPL and subsequent sale of DRC/TDR to various parties were found.\nIt was found that the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU vs. M/S. BLUELINE FOODS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, MANGALURU

property. The mere issue of warrant of authorization\nwithout there being search of the premises mentioned in the warrant\nof authorization would be meaningless and would not serve the\npurpose of section 132 of the Act. It may be illustrated by taking an\nexample that if warrant of authorization under section 132 is issued in\nthe name of “A” after

M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

2. 1.2. It is further submitted that the lease agreements dated 7 ITA No.982/Bang/2019. M/s.Embassy Knowledge Infrastructure Projects Pvt.Ltd. 31.07.2009 and 10.12.2015 show that the lease rent is charged for both movable properties and immovable properties. Movable properties consist of Furnitures and Fixtures, Plant and Machinery, Office Equipment, Books and sports equipment, computers etc. (Page