M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

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 do not involve carrying

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 do not involve carrying

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 do not involve carrying

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 do not involve carrying

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 do not involve carrying

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 do not involve carrying

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 do not involve carrying

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

Price (Rs.)\n0\n(Zero)\nFirst Party\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nSecond Party\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5 2 1 BENGALURU\nStamp Duty Paid By\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\n20\n(Twenty only)\nBEFORE THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nBANGALORE BENCH\nThe Karnataka State Co-\noperative Agriculture and Rural\nDevelopment

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

Price (Rs.)\nFirst Party\nSecond Party\nStamp Duty Paid By\nStamp Duty Amount (Rs.)\nIN-KA62211732245533V\n06-Dec-2023 02:47 PM\nNONACC (FI)/ kacrsf108/ CHAMRAJPET/KA-BV\nSUBIN-KAKACRSFL0891976534819913V\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nArticle 4 Affidavit\nAffidavit\n0\n(Zero)\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK LTD\nTHE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 521 BENGALURU\nTHE KSCA AND RD BANK

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vii. The revenue received by the assessee cannot be construed as a simple case of transfer of property under capital gains. In any transfer of property, the transferor and the transferee exercise effective control over the transaction. In the present scenario, the assessee has no control over the sale process (right to choose the transferee) and the cancellation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

vii. The revenue received by the assessee cannot be construed as a simple case of transfer of property under capital gains. In any transfer of property, the transferor and the transferee exercise effective control over the transaction. In the present scenario, the assessee has no control over the sale process (right to choose the transferee) and the cancellation