K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

rectification order u/s. 154 of the Act was passed and the same was processed on 18/08/2022 by determining the total income of Rs.5,07,94,880/-. A search u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted on 23/02/2022 in the case of Komrala and Nanda Group of Companies, in the course of which the residential premise of the assessee at 66/1

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

u/s 115BBDA Rs. 20,14,51,567/- D. Income taxable at special rate (A+B+C) Rs. 36,78,25,373 4.1 On the other hand, the other incomes being taxable at normal slab rate included the following income: A. Income from House property Rs. 4,19,043/- B. Business Income Rs. 4,50,000/- C. Short term capital gain

PALLASANNA KRISHNA SUBRAMANIAN,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification application u/s 154 of the IT Act within the four year's period and same shall be decided on merit.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a HUF having source of income from trading in derivatives and other instruments, capital gain

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 115BBDA\nRs. 20,14,51,567/-\nD. Income taxable at special rate (A+B+C)\nRs. 36,78,25,373\n4.1 On the other hand, the other incomes being taxable at normal\nslab rate included the following income:\nA. Income from House property\nRs. 4,19,043/-\nB. Business Income\nRs. 4,50,000/-\nC. Short term capital gain

VINOD PRASAD INJETI ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, we reverse the orders of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

capital gain of Rs.23,05,025 was considered, assessing revised total income of Rs.25,29,443. Page 6 of 10 9. The assessee aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging that there is no mistake apparent from the record which warrants any rectification u/s. 154

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

rectification order under section 154 of the Act was passed as on 16th February 2022. 6. The assessee filed further appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 415/Bang/2023. The Tribunal vide order dated 01st August 2023 set aside the issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit. . Page 3 of 8 6.1 The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain in a residential property and (b) construction of residential property within three years from date of transfer. Therefore, it is incorrect to invoke the provisions of section 154 to rectify the assessment order passed under section 143(3). The appellant has constructed buildings on the four sites for which proof of construction shall be furnished at the time

KK FOUNDATION AND PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1 , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain was computed at Rs. (i) 7,91,97,200/- as against the Rs.3,61,91,000/- which was properly computed in the return of income. The accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act at 15% of the (ii) income being Rs. 54,50,889/- has not been allowed. Further, the accumulation u/s

M/S. PARMANAND AND SONS,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Cit(Appeals) On 11.02.2022. The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee As Infructuous By Observing As Under:-

capital gain. The assessee filed rectification application u/s. 154 which was rejected by the CPC on 03.12.2021. The assessee filed

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to \n1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the

rectification order u/s 154 of the Act dated \n20.02.2018.). The details are as under: \n\nGold\n\nParticulars \n\nFound \nin \ncourse \nof \nsearch\n\nStatement of \nassets filed \nbefore Lok \nAyukta \n(gms)\n\nDifference \n(gms)\n\nCBDT rate \nper gm \n(after \nadjustments)\n\nDifference \nin Rs. \n\nAppellant\n\n632.50

SHIVABASAPPA KARIYAPPANAVAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

rectification order\nu/s. 154 of the Act dated 27/09/2019 wherein the severance compensation\nfee of Rs. 19,45,734/- was confirmed to be taxable under head salary after\ngiving the credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 8,66,071/- not given while passing\nintimation U/s 143(1) of the Act.\n4.\nAggrieved by the order of the AO passed u/s

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

rectification of the TP order by recomputing the TP adjustment, if any, after reckoning the segmental level data only. However, we note from the order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the TPO on this application u/s. 154 that the said request for recomputing the TP adjustment has not been considered by IT(TP)A No.370/Bang/2021 Page

MR. VIKRAM DHONDU RAO, ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act against the said intimation u/s 143(1) before the AO and accordingly the order u/s 154 of the Act was passed by the AO on 24/05/2023 allowing the credit of tax deducted at source.\n\nBrief facts on excess levy of interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act as submitted

GREEN ORCHAND FARM HOUSES ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2016-17

rectification u/s 154 of the Act dated 15.10.2019 as follows: Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 12 of 25 Green Orchard Farm Houses, Bangalore Page 13 of 25 5.2 Later, there was an enquiry conducted in the case of Manipal Academy of Higher Education and notice u/s 133(6) of the Act has been issued and it was found that

SRI. SANDEEP PATWARI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

capital gains, interest and dividend. The total income disclosed in the return of 2 ITA No.223/Bang/2023. Sri.Sandeep Patwari. income was a sum of Rs.1,17,07,500. According to the assessee, the assessee had offered to tax in India, salary earned abroad amounting to Rs.63,23,362 and paid taxes on the same (Rs.21,47,702). The assessee had claimed

DORAISWAMI RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2021-22

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act which was rejected by the CPC. 5. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. 6. The assessee before the learned CIT(A)/NFAC contended that the long-term capital gain

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing the total income under this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation of the income which does

RAM AVADHANULU JONNAVITHULA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

154 of the IT Act, 1961, I made the following attempts at rectification: 1. Online I have Ned rectification return as on 04-Apr-2019, rejected by CPC with no communication as to the reasons for rejections. i found out about the rejection in Sep-2023 on receipt of communication to pay the demand. 2. Aggrieved, one more rectification return

M/S. PRAZIM TRADING AND INVESTMENT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22 M/S. Prazim Trading & Investment Vs. Dcit, Company Private Limited, Circle – 3(1)(1), 574, Next To Wipro Corporate Office, Bengaluru. Sarjapur Road, Doddakkanelli, Bengaluru – 560 035. Pan : Aaacp 4921 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. K. Manjunath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024

154 of the Act by the Centralized Processing Center, which mistake was continuing from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, being an erroneous addition of Rs. 4,93,34,784/- by the IT portal and imputing the same amount as income under the head "profits and gains of business or profession", even when the Appellant had no income