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

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. 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. 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

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTAT 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.

house property. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

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.

house property. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

M/S MFAR DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT 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.

house property. 11. The ground of appeal in respect of processing fee and pre-payment charges to be allowed u/s 24(b), the learned AR substantiated his argument relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pentagram Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT in ITA No.3713/Mu/2010 & ITA No.4526/Mum/2010 dated 12/08/2011 and referred to paras

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

b. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Anil Kumar Bhatis 352 ITP 403 (Delhi). c. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Delhi). d. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Kurele Paper mills Pvt. Ltd. 380 ITR 761 (Delhi). In this regard, it is seen from the assessment order that no incriminating material has been brought on record

SRI. H. NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

40A(3) ought not to have been made. The appeal was partly allowed by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 15/09/2011. This order was carried further in appeal to the Tribunal which came to be partly allowed vide its order dated 05/09/2014. 4. While the matter stood thus, the Commissioner of Income- tax had issued a show cause notice

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income from AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not apply. 3.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 20,04,651 not paid within the due date under section 139(1). 3.4 On facts

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

40A(3)/(3A) in computing application of income from AY 2019-20 onwards. Hence, section 43B does not apply. 3.3 Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition / disallowance under section 43B in respect of slum improvement cess of Rs. 20,04,651 not paid within the due date under section 139(1). 3.4 On facts

VENKATRAM NANJUNDAIAH SRIDHAR,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 7(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year: 2016-17

house property, income from business of a partnership firm of which he was a partner, interest income on loans & advances and deposits. In the return of income under the head ‘income from other sources’, the assessee declared a loss of Rs.16,76,696. The computation of income under the head ‘income from other sources’ was as follows:- Page 2

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

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Abraham P George

houses in India for residential purposes, an amount not exceeding forty per cent of the profits derived from such business of providing long-term finance computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" (before making any deduction under this clause) carried to such reserve account : Sec. 28(1) Profits and gains of business or profession

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