DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

house at Coonoor 'Rs.43,57,400). h) In respect of payments made by Gokuldas Images to Personality Limited, the corresponding voucher entries / bank statements of M/s. GIPL. i) Copy of General Ledger Report from 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006 under the head " General Ledger -Loans to Directors" in the group name "Loans and advances" as appearing in the books of M/s. Gokaldas

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

Housing & Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 59 CCH 0141. m) He submitted that when the lender EPL has declared dividend and paid dividend distribution tax, there is no intention to avoid payment of dividend distribution tax u/s 115-O of the Act and provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act cannot be applied. For this purpose, he relied

M/S ASSETZ INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds 3

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year:2014-15

House, No.30, 3rd Floor Deputy Commissioner of Crescent Road Income-tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 001 Circle-2(2) Bengaluru PAN NO : AAGCA7614K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.R. Respondent by : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2022 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal was originally disposed

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

E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A) dated 21.11.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- The impugned order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the (2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal - 6 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

e-return. The manual copy of the return filed is filed. As per the AIR and CIB information base, it is also seen that the assessee has deposited a total cash of Rs.1,12,02,680 in the Savings Bank Accounts maintained by him. 3 As per the AIR information, the assessee has also received interest of Rs.1

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

house property. Therefore, in our considered view disallowances made by the AO under section 80P(2) of the Act on the amount of rent on building for Rs. 15,57,093/- shown in profit & loss account under the head other income is misplaced and amounts to double taxation. Accordingly, the disallowances of other income under section 80P(2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI vs. SMT. SHEELA PRASANNAKUMAR , CHITRADURGA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 56(2)(x) of the Act is applicable from 01.04.2017 and the case is\nrelated to the Financial Year 2016-17, the assessee has made part\n(substantial) payment before 31.03.2017 and at that time the charging\nsection was not in force in the statute book. Therefore, the addition made by\nthe AO is beyond the provision

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

E) [2013] 358 ITR 78 (Delhi); 3.20 Therefore, it is submitted the in the aforesaid background of the Assessee, the Assessee’s case does not fall within the mischief of 1st proviso to section 2 (15) of the IT Act. Hence, the exemption under section 11 of the IT Act ought not to have been denied. 4. As regards

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

E-\nassessment scheme, 2019 on the following issues:\ni. Details of assets and liabilities\n\n3.1 Accordingly, the notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were\nissued calling for the details. The assessee has declared rental\nincome from house property, business income as per provisions of\nsection 44AD, capital gains on sale of shares and income from

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses,\nprinting presses, hostels, residential quarters and the like.\n(ii) To provide medical relief to the poor, distressed, afflicted and mentally,\nphysically, or psychologically handicapped persons, in India including supply of\nspectacles and other medical, surgical and remedial appliances and for this\npurpose to start, establish, conduct, maintain and manage and help\ndispensaries, hospitals, medical centres, diagnostic centres

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

houses,\nprinting presses, hostels, residential quarters and the like.\n(ii) To provide medical relief to the poor, distressed, afflicted and mentally,\nphysically, or psychologically handicapped persons, in India including supply of\nspectacles and other medical, surgical and remedial appliances and for this\npurpose to start, establish, conduct, maintain and manage and help\ndispensaries, hospitals, medical centres, diagnostic centres

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

housing etc. The Ld.AR submitted that the PCARD Banks\nare forwarding such loan applications along with technical and\nfinancial appraisal reports to the district officer of the assessee.\nThe amount required for the PCARD Banks for sanction of loans\ninvolved in such loan application is provided by the assessee to\nthe concerned PCARD Banks in the form of loans

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

housing etc. The Ld.AR submitted that the PCARD Banks\nare forwarding such loan applications along with technical and\nfinancial appraisal reports to the district officer of the assessee.\nThe amount required for the PCARD Banks for sanction of loans\ninvolved in such loan application is provided by the assessee to\nthe concerned PCARD Banks in the form of loans