M/S. EMBASSY KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

house property even though it cannot be added as per the provisions of the Act. 7. The assessee also raised following additional grounds:- (i) The interest cost is Rs.7.03 crore and not Rs.4.34 crore as raised in original grounds of appeal. (ii) Depreciation on the asset leased has to be allowed. (iii) Deduction on section 80G of Rs.5 lakh

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

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, business income, capital gain and other sources. In the return of income, the assessee declared Gross Total Income

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

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, business income, capital gain and other sources. In the return of income, the assessee declared Gross Total Income

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

MS GOOGLE INDIA PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

80G(5)(vi) of the Act, by the DIT(Exemption), Bangalore vide order dated 26.11.2009. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment 2 ITA Nos.1265 & 1266/Bang/2024 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust year 2012-13 on 21.03.2013 declaring income of rupees Nil. The return was processed by Revenue under Section 143(1) on 31.03.2013.The case

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

80G(5)(vi) of the Act, by the DIT(Exemption), Bangalore vide order dated 26.11.2009. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment 2 ITA Nos.1265 & 1266/Bang/2024 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Karnataka Chinmaya Seva Trust year 2012-13 on 21.03.2013 declaring income of rupees Nil. The return was processed by Revenue under Section 143(1) on 31.03.2013.The case

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

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

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

M/S. THE SANDUR MANGANESE & IRON ORES LTD,SANDUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BELLARY

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

80G. It is genuine business expenditure for protecting and representing the interest of the assessee Company before govt agencies relating to a mining and same has to be allowed. 6.2 The Ld.AR submitted that payment made towards FIMI has been considered by Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/s. Vibhutigudda Mines Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT