SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

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

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5) PRESENTLY CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

u/s 154(7) of the I.T.Act would include even `rectified order’. In coming to the above conclusion, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hind Wire Industries Limited (supra) inter alia has 14 M/s.Karnataka Power Corporation Limited. followed the earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Sales-tax case in the case of International Cotton

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

SMT. SHILPA GOPALA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

rectification application under section 154 of the Act, based on the advice of the Chartered Accountant' under bonafide belief and neither deliberately or intentionally delayed in filing the appeal. 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant ought not have been denied remedy by way of appeal on mere technicalities in view of the landmark Supreme Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. LATE SRI.A.S.NARAYANA RAJU, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

rectification application u/s 154 with the Assessing Officer on 15/02/2013 contending that any income which arose by virtue of the JDA is assessable in AY 2004-05. However the Assessing Officer was of the view that no obvious or patent mistake was apparent from record since the long term / short term capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. LATE SRI.A.S.NARAYANA RAJU, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

rectification application u/s 154 with the Assessing Officer on 15/02/2013 contending that any income which arose by virtue of the JDA is assessable in AY 2004-05. However the Assessing Officer was of the view that no obvious or patent mistake was apparent from record since the long term / short term capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. LATE SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

rectification application u/s 154 with the Assessing Officer on 15/02/2013 contending that any income which arose by virtue of the JDA is assessable in AY 2004-05. However the Assessing Officer was of the view that no obvious or patent mistake was apparent from record since the long term / short term capital gains

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. LATE SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

rectification application u/s 154 with the Assessing Officer on 15/02/2013 contending that any income which arose by virtue of the JDA is assessable in AY 2004-05. However the Assessing Officer was of the view that no obvious or patent mistake was apparent from record since the long term / short term capital gains

M/S UNITED BREWERIES LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

rectification order passed u/s 154 for A.Y. 2010-2011. It is ordered accordingly. Withholding tax amount on foreign royalty : (Ground 5) (5.1 and 5.2) 10. The assessee during the relevant AY 2012-13 received royalty income from Independent Distilleries (Aust) Pty Ltd, Australia and Independent Distilleries (NZ) Ltd, New Zealand amounting to Rs.1,49,08,389. The said amount

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

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

gain consideration consideration acquisition offered to tax 352,599,441 3,084,915 2017-18 349,514,526 43,621,676 305,892,850 2018-19 218,214,035 1,780,301 216,433,734 24,784,313 191,649,421 2019-20 762,950,740 6,980,579 755,970,161 83,182,154

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

gain consideration consideration acquisition offered to tax 352,599,441 3,084,915 2017-18 349,514,526 43,621,676 305,892,850 2018-19 218,214,035 1,780,301 216,433,734 24,784,313 191,649,421 2019-20 762,950,740 6,980,579 755,970,161 83,182,154

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

gain consideration consideration acquisition offered to tax 352,599,441 3,084,915 2017-18 349,514,526 43,621,676 305,892,850 2018-19 218,214,035 1,780,301 216,433,734 24,784,313 191,649,421 2019-20 762,950,740 6,980,579 755,970,161 83,182,154

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S IND- SING DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Jm

Capital Gains' and completed the assessment vide order dated 28.12.2007 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently a rectification order u/s 154