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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain taxable at normal rate Rs. 58,95,682/- (Rs. 63,96,143 minus brought forward loss of Rs. 5,00,461) D. Interest Income Rs. 1,16,275/- Total (A+B+C+D) Rs. 68,81,000/- 4.2 Further, the assessee against

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STMICROELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

80G of the Act. Grounds of appeal relating to transfer pricing matters On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: 5. the learned AO/Transfer Pricing Officer ('TPO') erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,99,84,625 to the total income of the Appellant on account of adjustment in the arm's length price

SHRI SADGURU NIRUPADESHWARA NITYA DASOHA CHARITABLE TRUST ANKALIMATH,MUDGAL, LINGASURU TQ RAICHUR DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1,KALBURGI, KALBURGI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80G deduction approval. 6. Thereafter, steps were taken to engage an authorized representative who file and represent the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal, Bengaluru to ensure that such lapses do not recur. 7. Aggrieved by the said orders. The appellant wishes to prefer an appeal before f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), however the statutory time

SHRI SADGURU NIRUPADESHWARA NITYA DASOHA CHARITABLE TRUST ANKALIMATH,MAKAPUR, LINGASURU TQ AND RAICHUR DIST vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,EXEMPTION, EXEMPTION WARD-1,KALBURGI, KALBURGI,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

80G deduction approval. 6. Thereafter, steps were taken to engage an authorized representative who file and represent the appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Tribunal, Bengaluru to ensure that such lapses do not recur. 7. Aggrieved by the said orders. The appellant wishes to prefer an appeal before f the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), however the statutory time

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

vi. The AO ought to have appreciated that the assessee’s activity was to be appreciated by considering the surrounding circumstances under which it operates, the individuals to whom benefit is accruing, the extent of the revival in the economy it is aiding in, to arrive at the conclusion that the assessee was not doing charitable activity. vii. In view

SANGHAMITRA RURAL FINANCIAL SERVICES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

vi. The AO ought to have appreciated that the assessee's activity was to be appreciated by considering the surrounding circumstances under which it operates, the individuals to whom benefit is accruing, the extent of the revival in the economy it is aiding in, to arrive at the conclusion that the assessee was not doing charitable activity. vii. In view

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

5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) was not justified in law in not cancelling or annulling the entire assessment as void ab initio after having held that assessment in the status of AOP is not correct and the appellant is to be assessed as Artificial juridical person on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The learned