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

4. Further, the ld. A.R. submitted that as per the Provisions of the Act, Sec. 11,12 and 13 are a separate Code of computation of income. The Assessee is entitled to the same and has claimed 100% Exemption u/sec 11 as per Sec. 12A(2). Assuming for a moment, but not admitting, that the Assessee is not eligible

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings for the year 2003-04, it was found that purchases worth Rs.61.40 lakhs were not supported by sufficient evidence. Purchase of such goods from various suppliers was verified, but it was found that such parties had not supplied the goods as named by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made an addition of the entire amount of purchase

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

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed\nas infructuous

4 of the appeal has\nchallenged the validity of the search under section 132 of the Act, notice\nissued under section 153A of the Act and assessment framed under\nsection 153A of the Act on different technical grounds.\n106. At the outset, we note that the issue raised by the assessee on\nmerit of the case has been decided

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

4) of the Act on 18.1.2018, which is much beyond the due date of filing return as prescribed. Further, the assessee has also filed the audit report in form 10B dated 12.1.2018 belatedly on 18.1.2018. We also cannot brush aside the fact that the assessee has been granted registration u./s 12A of the Act by the ld. CIT, Karnataka

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.

11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under:- “The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner of Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation has also been denied to the assessee on wrong basis by the authorities below that an opportunity of cross examines needs to be given only when third party is involved or a party not known

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

4) of the Act, i.e., is not a Co-operative bank as defined under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and thus eligible for the claim of deduction under section 8oP of the Act.” ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 27 7. In addition to the above written synopsis, the ld.AR argued on the legal issue in regard to eligibility

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

4) of the Act, i.e., is not a Co-operative bank as defined under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 and thus eligible for the claim of deduction under section 8oP of the Act.” ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 10 of 27 7. In addition to the above written synopsis, the ld.AR argued on the legal issue in regard to eligibility

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 12AB(4) issued a show-cause notice for cancellation of the registration as under :- ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 22 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 23 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 24 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 25 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page 26 of 81 ITA Nos.2106 to 2109/Bang/2024 Page

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4] Mysuru dated 04/02/2016. [vi] Thus, even on this count as well the entire procedure as adopted by the learned assessing officer under section 148 and 147 of the Act have been without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the entire reassessment which was framed by the learned assessing officer on an invalid assumption of 22 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4] Mysuru dated 04/02/2016. [vi] Thus, even on this count as well the entire procedure as adopted by the learned assessing officer under section 148 and 147 of the Act have been without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the entire reassessment which was framed by the learned assessing officer on an invalid assumption of 22 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4] Mysuru dated 04/02/2016. [vi] Thus, even on this count as well the entire procedure as adopted by the learned assessing officer under section 148 and 147 of the Act have been without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the entire reassessment which was framed by the learned assessing officer on an invalid assumption of 22 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4] Mysuru dated 04/02/2016. [vi] Thus, even on this count as well the entire procedure as adopted by the learned assessing officer under section 148 and 147 of the Act have been without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the entire reassessment which was framed by the learned assessing officer on an invalid assumption of 22 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4] Mysuru dated 04/02/2016. [vi] Thus, even on this count as well the entire procedure as adopted by the learned assessing officer under section 148 and 147 of the Act have been without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the entire reassessment which was framed by the learned assessing officer on an invalid assumption of 22 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

4] Mysuru dated 04/02/2016. [vi] Thus, even on this count as well the entire procedure as adopted by the learned assessing officer under section 148 and 147 of the Act have been without assumption of proper jurisdiction and consequently the entire reassessment which was framed by the learned assessing officer on an invalid assumption of 22 ITA Nos.1761-1766/Bang/2018 M/s.Bandanthamma Mathu

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

11. On the other hand, ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and cited and relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

11. On the other hand, ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and cited and relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: "A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises

M/S. KESAR MARBLE AND GRANITES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

11. On the other hand, ld. D.R. strongly opposed the argument of ld. A.R. and cited and relied on the following judgements: (i) Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Video Master Vs. JCIT reported in (2015) 378 ITR 374 (SC), wherein held as under: “A search and seizure operation was carried on at premises

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order