M/S. NAVODAYA GRAMA VIKAS CHARITABLE TRUST,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Navodaya Grama Vikas Charitable Trust, The Deputy #14-7-1005, Scdcc Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Head Office Building, Central Circle – 1, Kodialbail, Vs. Mangaluru. Mangaluru – 575 003. Pan: Aaatn7594E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate & Assessee By Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-08-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2022 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-2, Panaji For A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law. Equity, Weight Of Evidence. Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit [A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Disallowance Of The Exemption Claimed U/S.11 Of The Act

364 held that legal terms "trade, commerce, or business" in Section 2(15), means an activity undertaken with a view to make or earn profit. Profit motive is determinative and a critical factor to discern whether an activity is business, trade or commerce. 4.9 The activity of the appellant predominantly is to take loans from banks at a lower rate

MARGDARSHAN FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands\nallowed

houses / shelters for\nunderprivileged persons, financial assistance for education o\nunderprivileged students and financial assistance in performing\nof marriage of the daughters of the underprivileged families.\n3.1. Placing reliance on the voluminous evidences filed in respect\nof the expenditure incurred towards the objects of the assessee,\nthe Ld.AR submitted that assessee cannot be held to be carrying\nout religious activity

MARGDARSHAN FOUNDATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands\nallowed

houses / shelters for\nunderprivileged persons, financial assistance for education o\nunderprivileged students and financial assistance in performing\nof marriage of the daughters of the underprivileged families.\n3.1. Placing reliance on the voluminous evidences filed in respect\nof the expenditure incurred towards the objects of the assessee,\nthe Ld.AR submitted that assessee cannot be held to be carrying\nout religious activity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

House Property” and computed a loss of Rs.17,32,732/-. The said computation is as follows: Income Rental Income 4,08,22,924 Maintenance Receipt 74.84,364 Miscellaneous Income 1,38,036 Sub-Total 4,84,45,324 Expenses Millennium Tower Expenses 22,20,678 Electricity Charges 6,19,156 Maintenance Expenses 10,81,614 Security Expenses

SMT URMILA RAMESH ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

House Property’, ‘Profits and Gains from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’ and agricultural income of Rs.6,42,593/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny for Assessment Year 2012-13 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2014 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.34

SMT URMILA RAMESH ,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14 are dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

House Property’, ‘Profits and Gains from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’ and agricultural income of Rs.6,42,593/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny for Assessment Year 2012-13 and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2014 wherein the assessee’s income was determined at Rs.34

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

house property, Profits and gains of business or profession, Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act lays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The income of the Assessee in the present case would fall within

DCIT, CC-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

house property, Profits and gains of business or\nprofession, Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act\nlays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax\nunder the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\". The income of the\nAssessee in the present case would fall within

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

house property, Profits and gains of business or\nprofession, Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act\nlays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax\nunder the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\". The income of the\nAssessee in the present case would fall within

DCIT CC -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INSTAKART SERVICES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

house property, Profits and gains of business or\nprofession, Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act\nlays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax\nunder the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\". The income of the\nAssessee in the present case would fall within

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, SPECIAL RANG-3, BANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

house property, Profits and gains of business or\nprofession, Capital gains and Income from other sources. Sec. 28 of the Act\nlays down various categories of income that shall be chargeable to income-tax\nunder the head \"Profits and gains of business or profession\". The income of the\nAssessee in the present case would fall within

NEELAVARA SANJEEVA RAO,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

house for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s 54F. The exemption of Rs 2,00,23,125 u/s 54F is to be allowed. 4.1 The learned assessing officer and CIT(A) has erred in not following the jurisdictional high court decisions wherein it is held that the assessee is eligible to claim exemption u/s 54/54F even though the investment

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. 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. 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