MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

264), under identical circumstances had held as follows'.- “7. Section 44AD of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 1-4-1994. Sub-section (1) of section 44AD clearly provides that where an assessce is engaged in the business of civil construction or supply of labour for civil construction, income shall be estimated

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property, interest on securities, capital gains, or other sources, the word 'income' should be understood in its commercial sense, i.e., book income, after adding back any appropriations or applications thereof towards the purpose of the trust or otherwise, and also after adding back any debits made for capital expenditure incurred for the purposes of the trust or otherwise

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2(3), BANGALURU vs. SHRI T.H SURESH BABU, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

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

264. The AO completed assessment u/s. 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 22.3.2013 by determining total income at Rs.1,82,63,699 inter alia making the following additions:- Unexplained expenditure in marriage - Rs.53,34,268 Cash credits - Rs.40,00,000 Unexplained gifts - Rs.86,56,171 3. Against this, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) challenging

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. 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 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

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

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

property under\nreference, which prima facie indicated that the investment was not\naccounted. The investment was stated to have been made entirely in\ncash and the assessee failed to demonstrate the availability of cash on\nhand. The assessee was repeatedly called upon to certify and declare\nthe accounts and balance sheet under Rule 14 of the Income-tax Rules,\n1962

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR ,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

property under\nreference, which prima facie indicated that the investment was not\naccounted. The investment was stated to have been made entirely in\ncash and the assessee failed to demonstrate the availability of cash on\nhand. The assessee was repeatedly called upon to certify and declare\nthe accounts and balance sheet under Rule 14 of the Income-tax Rules,\n1962

AMMATI VENKATACHALAPATHISETTY SATISH KUMAR,CHINTAMANI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKKABALLAPUR

Appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

property under\nreference, which prima facie indicated that the investment was not\naccounted. The investment was stated to have been made entirely in\ncash and the assessee failed to demonstrate the availability of cash on\nhand. The assessee was repeatedly called upon to certify and declare\nthe accounts and balance sheet under Rule 14 of the Income-tax Rules,\n1962

M/S. ADARSH VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

House and residential institution for the students and those connected with the institution. (v) To invest, dispose or transfer and otherwise deal with the subject-matter of the Trust in such manner as the Trustees should deem fit so as to enable the Trust on the objects of the Trust effectively. (vi) 'To accept donation, grants, presents and other offerings

M/S. AMALA JYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

House and residential institution for the students and those connected with the institution. (v) To invest, dispose or transfer and otherwise deal with the subject-matter of the Trust in such manner as the Trustees should deem fit so as to enable the Trust on the objects of the Trust effectively. (vi) 'To accept donation, grants, presents and other offerings

M/S. AMALA JYOTHI VIDYA KENDRA TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

House and residential institution for the\nstudents and those connected with the institution.\n(v) To invest, dispose or transfer and otherwise deal\nwith the subject-matter of the Trust in such manner as\nthe Trustees should deem fit so as to enable the Trust to\non the objects of the Trust effectively.\n(vi) 'To accept donation, grants, presents

M/S. ADARSH VIDYA KENDRA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

House and residential institution for the\nstudents and those connected with the institution.\n(v) To invest, dispose or transfer and otherwise deal\nwith the subject-matter of the Trust in such manner as\nthe Trustees should deem fit so as to enable the Trust to\non the objects of the Trust effectively.\n(vi) 'To accept donation, grants, presents

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Housing Development Company Vs. DCIT (274 CTR 122), wherein held as follows:- “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub-section