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. 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

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

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income\nfrom AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not\napply.\n3.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in\nconfirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B\nin respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 20,04,651 not\npaid within the due date under section 139(1).\n3.4 On facts

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, , BANGALORE

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals\nare allowed except the limitation ground

40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income\nfrom AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not\napply.\n3.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in\nconfirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B\nin respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 20,04,651 not\npaid within the due date under section 139(1).\n3.4 On facts

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

b) where the same person or enterprise holds directly or indirectly, shares carrying not less than 26% of the voting power in each of such enterprise, is also not present. Further, it is necessary to appreciate the scheme of section 92A. A plain reading of this statutory provision makes the legal position quite clear. The, basic rule for treating

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

40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11) and by the jurisdictional High Courts, only real income earned can be taxed and not notional income which the Revenue assumes could have been earned. The Revenue cannot substitute its own view

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

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11) and\nby the jurisdictional High Courts, only real income earned can be taxed\nand not notional income which the Revenue assumes could have been\nearned. The Revenue cannot substitute its own view

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

In the result, the stay application dismissed as infructuous

40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11) and\nby the jurisdictional High Courts, only real income earned can be taxed\nand not notional income which the Revenue assumes could have been\nearned. The Revenue cannot substitute its own view

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

40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11) and\nby the jurisdictional High Courts, only real income earned can be taxed\nand not notional income which the Revenue assumes could have been\nearned. The Revenue cannot substitute its own view

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

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

40A(2) of the Act. In such a situation, as laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. A. Raman & Co. (67 ITR 11) and\nby the jurisdictional High Courts, only real income earned can be taxed\nand not notional income which the Revenue assumes could have been\nearned. The Revenue cannot substitute its own view

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

property of assessee and Spreadtrum under the Settlement Agreement. This is clear from the term "Independently Owned IPR" as understood under the Settlement Agreement which means background IPR which in turn means that is owned or controlled by a party existing prior to the beginning of the joint development project or resulting from activities which are independent from and concurrent

SMT. REDDY SANGEETHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision

SRI. REDDY VEERANNA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

House Vs. CIT (88 taxmann.com 94) (Karn.), wherein held as under: Smt. Reddy Sangeetha, Bangalore ITA Nos.1112 & 1113/Bang/2022 & ITA Nos.1145 & 1146/Bang/2022 Shri Reddy Veeranna, Bangalore Page 4 of 39 "10. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the present writ petitions deserve to be dismissed for the following reasons:— (i) That the decision