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

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. 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

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

CENTRE FOR E-GOVERNANCE ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

68,72,848/- from deposits, which had not been applied towards any charitable purpose. 7.1 The AO held that tender processing fees amounting to ₹36,13,89,940/- (net amount shown at Rs. 15,08,03,638/- after deducting share of private partner for Rs. 21,05,86,302/-) formed the major revenue from e-procurement collections. Further, many services

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

68,500 Bank Ltd 29,76,150 Tumkur Grain Merchant co-op 2,87,500 Bank Ltd 32,72,084 Bharat Co-op Bank (Mumbai)ltd 9,23,847 2,15,220 Subramanyeshwara co-op Bank Ltd 2,50,000 ITA Nos.2347 & 2348/Bang/2024 & CO Nos.4 & 5/Bang/2025 M/s. Bangalore Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Bangalore Page 16 of 44 Bharat

M/S KBD SUGARS & DISTILLERIES LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2008-

68,458/- the assessee disallowed on its own Rs. 16.50 lakhs u/s 14A. Despite being asked by the AO to furnish the disallowance under rule 8D, the assessee did not furnish the details. The provisions of rule 8D inserted by the IT (Fifth Amendment) Rules 2008 with effect from 24.3.2008 are applicable for A.Y. 2008-09 and onwards. Therefore

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

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts

SRI. B. RUDRAGOUDA,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

section 37 (1) of the Act. 8.12.7. Based on above discussions and analysis, we are of opinion that contribution to SPV being 10%/15% of sale proceeds, under category A/B, is to be allowable expenditure for year under consideration.” 19. Facts leading to the disallowance is in the present case is similar and identical to the facts

YOKOGAWA INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

253 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ("Act") against the order passed on 28.01 .2016 under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Circle - 1, Bangalore ("AO") (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Order) in pursuance of the directions issued by Dispute

M/S. TUV RHEINLAND NIFE ACADEMY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1)(2),, BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Tuv Rheinland Nife Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Academy Pvt. Ltd., Ward-7(1)(2), No.27/B, 2Nd Cross, 13, Bengaluru. Konappan Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Electronic City, Bangalore – 560 100. Pan : Aaect 8703 A Appellant Respondent

68,31,128/- in view of the following additions / disallowances: (i) Share premium taxed u/s 56(2)(viib) - Rs.19,74,00,000/- (ii) Disallowance of bad debts - Rs. 40,70,166/- 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dated 28.12.2017 for Assessment Year 2015-16, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) – 7, Bangalore, which was dismissed vide

M/S TALLY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

2,49,95,139/-. The DRP though concurred with the view of the Assessing Officer/TPO on the issue of international transaction, however, the adjustment was reduced by applying the interest rate of 7% instead of 18.816% applied by the TPO. The first issue raised by the assessee is whether the aggregate period extended by the assessee to the AE which

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

2 the revenue has raised that the ld. CIT (A) has not followed the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case Lord Krishna for computation of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) in respect of classification of rural branches. This issue has been decided by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of State Bank of Mysore

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

2 the revenue has raised that the ld. CIT (A) has not followed the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case Lord Krishna for computation of deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) in respect of classification of rural branches. This issue has been decided by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of State Bank of Mysore

M/S VIJAYA BANK ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

Accordingly the grounds raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Bank Of Baroda Vs. Addl. Cit, Ltu, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Bmtc Building 7Th Floor, Central Accounts 6Th Block, Koramangala Bengaluru 560095 Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Aayakar Bhavan 7Th Floor, Central Accounts M.K. Road Dept., 41/2, M.G. Road Mumbai 400020 Bengaluru 560001 Pan – Aaacvo3787 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca& Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ca Revenue By: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.04.2023 M/S. Bank Of Baroda

68,383/-. 5. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee vide order dated 31.12.2018. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of the CIT(A) both assessee and Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal on the above mentioned grounds. 7. We have heard the rival