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

Housing Society (2000) 3 Mah LJ 131]. It is precisely for this reason that the legislature has introduced section 2(47)(v) read with section 45 which indicates that capital gains is taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered into even if the transfer of immovable property is not effective or complete under the general law.”(emphasis

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)

House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital accretion Rs.2,50,00,000 Rs.3,67,37,901 Rs.3,73,98,834 Gross total income 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee filed

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

property acquired by KIADB for BMRCL project falls u/s 46 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as such exemption cannot be granted to the assessee. In support of the above contention, the learned DR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sri.Ananthaswamy v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. in WP No.1451 of 2018 (judgment

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

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

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

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. 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. 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

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 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

IV computation of total income from house property u/s. 24(2), 25, 25A, 25Aa, 27 etc. are available and if we hold that the income from the house property is required to be treated as business income u/s. 28, then the consequences as mentioned in chapter D for profit and gains of the business profit under chapter 4 computation

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

houses, printing presses, hostels, residential quarters and the like. (ii) To provide medical relief to the poor, distressed, afflicted and mentally, physically, or psychologically handicapped persons, in India including supply of spectacles and other medical, surgical and remedial appliances and for this purpose to start, establish, conduct, maintain and manage and help dispensaries, hospitals, medical centres, diagnostic centres or other

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

houses, printing presses, hostels, residential quarters and the like. (ii) To provide medical relief to the poor, distressed, afflicted and mentally, physically, or psychologically handicapped persons, in India including supply of spectacles and other medical, surgical and remedial appliances and for this purpose to start, establish, conduct, maintain and manage and help dispensaries, hospitals, medical centres, diagnostic centres or other

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

iv) The activities of the assessee and the generation of profits on account of the same are akin to the activities carried on by real estate companies, property developers, infrastructure firms etc., and therefore, the activities of the assessee are squarely fall under the ambit of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Accordingly, the activities

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

iv) The activities of the assessee and the generation of profits on account of the same are akin to the activities carried on by real estate companies, property developers, infrastructure firms etc., and therefore, the activities of the assessee are squarely fall under the ambit of activities which are in the nature of trade, commerce or business. Accordingly, the activities

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (surpa) and after having been understood the same has clearly laid down the principle that a concluded assessment cannot be disturbed without there being any existene of incriminating material. 13. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra), after considering all the relevant decisions on this point

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

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale1. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No.730/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No.731/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year; 2014-15) M/S.Mfar Developers Pvt. Ltd. No.3, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aafcm 6271 M Vs. 1-2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri K.K.Chythanya, Advocate. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeals Against Different Orders Of The Cit(A) For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014- 15. Ita Nos.1649/Bang/2017 & 730 & 731/Bang/2018 Page 2 Of 16 2. As Far As Ground No.2 In Respect Of Disallowance Of Proportionate Interest U/S 24(B) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short], The Assessee Has Raised Similar Grounds Of Appeal For Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-13 & 2014-15. Similarly, For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Has Raised An Alternative Plea To Allow Interest U/S 36(1)(Iii) Which Is Also Ground Of Appeal In Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, The Assessee Raised Ground For Allowance Of Deduction Towards Processing Fees & Pre-Payment Charges U/S 24(B) Of The Act. For The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Assessee Has Raised A Ground For Disallowance Of Rs.25,77,78/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act.

section 24 (b) of the IT Act; For the above reasons and for such other reasons which may be allowed by the Honourable Members to be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the aforesaid appeal be allowed.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of leasing of properties