DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 80G of the Act for Rs. 16,28,978/- only. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee, an individual, during the year under consideration derived income under the house property

ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

House Manipal Udupi Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Karnataka 576 104 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATA2976P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order

DR. T M A PAI FOUNDATION ,UDUPI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: Na

House Manipal HO Udupi Vs. CIT (Exemptions) Karnataka 576 104 Bangalore PAN NO : AAATD1327M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.06.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order

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

SRI. SENAPATHY GOPALAKRISHNAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

house properties) Income from business or profession (4,52,77,277) Net Profit as per P&L 73,61,082 Add: Depreciation debited into P&L 0 Less: Deductible expenses to be excluded (5,25,00,000) (35 to 35E, 32AD, 33AB, 33ABA) Less: Income considered separately (1,38,359) Adjusted profit from business (4,52,77,277) Total income

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

property held under trust either wholly or in part for charitable or religious purposes shall not be included in the total income computed under the Act. Therefore, for an assessees other than religious trusts, the activities must necessarily be for a "charitable purpose" within the meaning of section 2(15) for availing the exemption under section 11. Page

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 (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

property taxes, building licence fee, betterment tax and income from registration fee as business income and covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below ought to have held that the amount of Rs.2172.41 lakhs is not even income under the scheme of the Income

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

property taxes, building licence fee, betterment tax and income from registration fee as business income and covered by the proviso to section 2(15) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. b) The learned authorities below ought to have held that the amount of Rs.2172.41 lakhs is not even income under the scheme of the Income

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by (20A) on such an authority was taken away. ……………………………………….. ………………………………………… 8. A mere perusal of Article 289(1) discloses that a claim of exemption under it must

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SPECIAL RANGE - 1 , BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by (20A) on such an authority was taken away. ……………………………………….. ………………………………………… 8. A mere perusal of Article 289(1) discloses that a claim of exemption under it must

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by (20A) on such an authority was taken away. ……………………………………….. ………………………………………… 8. A mere perusal of Article 289(1) discloses that a claim of exemption under it must

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by (20A) on such an authority was taken away. ……………………………………….. ………………………………………… 8. A mere perusal of Article 289(1) discloses that a claim of exemption under it must

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by (20A) on such an authority was taken away. ……………………………………….. ………………………………………… 8. A mere perusal of Article 289(1) discloses that a claim of exemption under it must

M/S. BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee as well as revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2011-12

housing accommodation or for the purpose of planning, development or improvement of cities, towns and villages, which before the amendment was not included in computing the total income, was omitted. Consequently, the benefit conferred by (20A) on such an authority was taken away. ……………………………………….. ………………………………………… 8. A mere perusal of Article 289(1) discloses that a claim of exemption under it must

NADATHUR ESTATES P LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’] from gross total income of Rs 5,99.81.035/- The gross total income was arrived at after adjusting loss under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’ [Rs. 5,11,01,752] against income under the head ‘income from house property

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

80G of Rs. 4,05,98,408/- and 80IAB of Rs. 585,09,09,819/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee also responded to the notices. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10AA being profit of SEZ units. The total income also comprises

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

property. Even, the extent of cash found is supported by the balances as per books of accounts of the assessee. Evidence was also produced before the learned PCIT to substantiate the said position. M/s. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalore Page 12 of 50 Hence, the question of diversion of the funds of the trust does