M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment. Disallowances/Additions: 6.1 Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 11(1)(a) of Rs.6,85,70,097: The AO held that

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment. Disallowances/Additions: 6.1 Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 11(1)(a) of Rs.6,85,70,097: The AO held that

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment. Disallowances/Additions: 6.1 Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 11(1)(a) of Rs.6,85,70,097: The AO held that

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment. Disallowances/Additions: 6.1 Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 11(1)(a) of Rs.6,85,70,097: The AO held that

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment. Disallowances/Additions: 6.1 Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 11(1)(a) of Rs.6,85,70,097: The AO held that

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment. Disallowances/Additions: 6.1 Disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 11(1)(a) of Rs.6,85,70,097: The AO held that

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

exemption retrospectively for all the pending assessments, reassessments whether they are in the original Asst Stage or at the Appeal

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1-(1), BANGALORE vs. SATYANARAYAN VIVEK KUMAR(HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is also dismissed as not requiring adjudication

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2006-07

exemption was accepted by the AO. 4. Thereafter, the case was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served on the assessee on 30.11.2011. The reassessment

SMT. K.R.YASHODHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2007-08

exemption under section 54 of the Act in the reassessment of the proceedings, the same should be examined. We accordingly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), BANGALORE vs. SRI TNN SHETTY(HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2005-06

reassessment proceedings, the question whether the assessee should be allowed exemption u/s. 54EC of the Act came up for consideration

SOBHA SUBURBIA APARTMENTS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

exemption is in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act. In the reassessment the Assessing Officer made the addition

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

exemption u/s 10 (38) of the act. It was submitted by the assessee that during the reassessment proceedings the assessee

SRI. GANGASHARA SHETTY, ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

exemption of the entire long term capital gain (LTCG) u/s 54 of the Act as he has utilized the amount of gain in construction of one residential house. Thereafter, the reassessment

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

reassessment based on the same material is not permissible. d. The reference ought to have been made to DIT (Exemption

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED, BENGALURU

exempt income, no further disallowance by the Assessing Officer is warranted, following previous judgments of the High Court and Tribunal. The Tribunal also held that additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) is allowable for the process of converting raw coffee beans into liquid coffee, as it constitutes manufacturing. The reassessment

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

reassessment based on the\nsame material is not permissible.\nd. The reference ought to have been made to DIT\n(Exemption

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

reassessment based on the\nsame material is not permissible.\nd. The reference ought to have been made to DIT\n(Exemption

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

reassessment based on the\nsame material is not permissible.\nd. The reference ought to have been made to DIT\n(Exemption