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

Section 1 53A of the Act, the appellant filed returns of\nincome as under:\nA.Y. Amount (Rs.) Date\n2013-14 4,00,50,020/- 27.07.2019\n2014-15 3,61,21,170/- 27.07.2019\n2015-16 3,88,52,740/- 27.07.2019\n2016-17 5,71,59,860/- 27.07.2019\n2017-18 5,86,04,920/- 27.07.2019\n2.3 The Assessing Officer completed

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

Section 1 53A of the Act, the appellant filed returns of\nincome as under:\nΑ.Υ.\nAmount (Rs.)\nDate\n2013-14\n4,00,50,020/-\n27.07.2019\n2014-15\n3,61,21,170/-\n27.07.2019\n2015-16\n3,88,52,740/-\n27.07.2019\n2016-17\n5,71,59,860/-\n27.07.2019\n2017-18\n5,86,04,920/-\n27.07.2019\n2.3 The Assessing Officer completed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11 tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section 12, as If the relevant income not so exempt were. The income of an association

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

4 of section 2 or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section `4A) of section 11 tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 or section 12, as If the relevant income not so exempt were. The income of an association

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

11, 12 & 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without prejudice to the fact of granting merely in principle registration by DIT(E). (ii) With effect from the Assessment Year 2009-10, the advancement of any object of general public utility other than relief of the poor, education and medical relief as defined in section

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,068/- after disallowing Rs.4,25,00,000/- claimed u/s 54 of the IT Act and Rs.14,30,000/- as cost of improvement. 2.1 On verification and examination of the assessment record, the following were noticed: • That the assessee has claimed exemption of Rs. under capital gain on account of compulsory acquisition of property situated at Bommanahalli, Bengaluru under

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

4. Aggrieved from the above Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), assessee has filed documents that was filed ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 8 of 22 before the AO and after considering the various case laws and submission of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) allowed appeal of the assessee observing as under

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,00,12,501/- under the provisions of section 45(4) of the act ignoring the factual position that there were no transfer of assets consequent to alleged distribution and in the absence of any such distribution there was capital gains chargeable

M/S. ANAND DIAGNOSTIC LABORATORY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru erred in confirming the addition of Rs.49,00,12,501/- under the provisions of section 45(4) of the act ignoring the factual position that there were no transfer of assets consequent to alleged distribution and in the absence of any such distribution there was capital gains chargeable

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, he added Rs. 1,25,89,399/- to the income of the assessee and completed the assessment. Against this assessee went in appeal before ld. CIT(A). 8. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had opportunity before three forums - ITO(Inv.), AO and these proceedings — to furnish requisite material to establish

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of the statements made by the assessee’s Directors in the course of search under Section 132 of the Act were not justified?” (a) In the case, the learned CIT-(A) held that evidence does not mean only documentary evidence and the statement under section 132(4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

68 of the Act. . CO-9/Bang/2023 Page 3 of 25 4. The relevant facts are that the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the retail trading of jewelry, gold, silver, and other ornaments. The assessee's case for the assessment year under consideration was selected for scrutiny under CASS, and accordingly, a notice under Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. On appeal the Ld. C1T(A) in his order in ITA No. 355/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax/CC- 1(4)/CIT(A)-11/2015-16 dated 10.02.2016 has deleted the addition made. The revenue is now in this appeal before the Tribunal contesting the deletion made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. On appeal the Ld. C1T(A) in his order in ITA No. 355/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax/CC- 1(4)/CIT(A)-11/2015-16 dated 10.02.2016 has deleted the addition made. The revenue is now in this appeal before the Tribunal contesting the deletion made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. On appeal the Ld. C1T(A) in his order in ITA No. 355/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax/CC- 1(4)/CIT(A)-11/2015-16 dated 10.02.2016 has deleted the addition made. The revenue is now in this appeal before the Tribunal contesting the deletion made

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

section 11(1)” but did not exercised his option by e- filing Form-9A before due date as per Rule-17 of the Income Tax Rules. Chitradurga Zilla Reddy Jana Sangha (R), Chitradurga Page 4 of 13 4.1 The AR of the assessee by way of written submission stated that the assessee trust filed its return of income disclosing

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; vi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRLCE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

68,604/-; vi) 'Deduction be allowed in respect of depreciation of Rs.37,48,862/-; vii) Delete additions on account of disallowance under section 43B amounting to Rs.1,09,16,175/-; viii) Interest levied under section 234A be deleted; ix) Interest levied under section 234B be deleted; and x) Interest levied under section 234D be deleted