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

5(2) and the provisions of section 68 or 69 cannot enlarge the scope of section 5(2

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

5 of 40\nSl.\nNo.\nNature of additions/disallowances\nAmount in Rs.\n1.\nDisallowance of Bad debts written off u/s 38(1)(vii)\n4745,39,23,677\n2.\nDisallowance of Expenditure towards CSR\n28,30,03,864\n3.\nDisallowance of Trust Expenses\n3,05,59,246\n4.\nExcess Claim of Depreciation on ATM, Note Counting\nMachine & Weighing Machine

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

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

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

section 68 of the Act merely on the grounds that assessee was not authorised to receive SBN during the demonetisation. We are also conscious to facts that the AO proceeded to make addition without verifying the details provided by the assessee, explaining the nature and source of the credit. Therefore, we, for the sake of justice and fair play

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response

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

68 taxmann.com 250 (Ahd. Trib.). 13. The ld. DR has further submitted that in any case, the said first proviso has been inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01- 4-2014 and as such, it is not applicable retrospectively. 14. For this, the Id. Counsel for the assessee has, again, cited the decision in the case of SNDP

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue as well as\nCos of the Assessee for the Asst

5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately,\nor on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides.\nA litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he\nruns a serious risk.\n(6) It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on\naccount of its power to legalise injustice

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance