T.D.RAJAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

capital gain and also claimed the exemption u/s 54F. The AO noticed that for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, assessments framed by the AO were revised u/s 263

T.D.SATYAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

capital gain and also claimed the exemption u/s 54F. The AO noticed that for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10, assessments framed by the AO were revised u/s 263

PIONEER INDEPENDENT TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

revision u/s. 263 of the Act. The assessee also furnished a Page 4 of 8 statement showing the arrival of the book gain in respect of the redeemed units of the equity oriented mutual funds. The assessee had also furnished the computation of capital

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

revising ground No.18 to 20 to read as follows: Revised/Modified Ground No. 18 to 20: 18. The learned AO / DRP erred in estimating/ substituting/deeming sale consideration of equity shares and debentures of Aigua Sprinkler and Hydrant India Private Limited by ignoring the actual sale consideration received. while computing capital gain/ loss arising to the Assessee from the said transaction

CANARA BANK vs. CIT,

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Canara Bank, Bsca Section, Head Office, J C Road, Bengaluru-560 002. Pan: Aaacc 6106 G … Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru. … Respondent

u/s. 263 for setting aside the assessment order dated 17/3/2010 for the relevant assessment year. 3. The learned Commissioner erred in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) based on the assessed income. 3.1 The learned Commissioner erred in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction under Section 36(1)(viii) incorrectly interpreting

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. ALI KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., MANGALORE vs. DR. YUSUF KUMBLE, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudanshu Srivastava

capital gains on account of conversion of a firm into a company under the provisions of Schedule IX of the Companies Act, 1956. Now the law is quite settled that an assessment u/s. 153A can be made only based on the incriminating material found as a result of action u/s. 132 of the Act. In the present cases, the alleged

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. SHRI. M.R. ANANDARAM (HUF), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and the Cross Objections of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodia

u/s 263 relying upon the decisions of T.K.Oayalu & Chaturbhuj Kapadia. The Fact that the Tribunal has held that the agreement between the parties would decide as to when Possession is intended to be given is of great importance to determine the year of taxability of Capital gain. In the present instance the parties have clearly agreed that the developer will

SRI.LOKESH M, LR OF SMT MALATHI LOKESH ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

u/s. 263. These appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 19.2.2019. Going by the sequence of dates and plea of assessee that it was owing to a different advice given by an earlier counsel that the appeals were not filed in time, in our view, has to be accepted. We therefore condone the delay in filing these appeals

SRI.LOKESH M, ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

u/s. 263. These appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 19.2.2019. Going by the sequence of dates and plea of assessee that it was owing to a different advice given by an earlier counsel that the appeals were not filed in time, in our view, has to be accepted. We therefore condone the delay in filing these appeals

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

u/s 263, the basic twin conditions namely (i) the order of the assessing officer sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and even one of the two requirement is absent, recourse cannot be had to section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance placed in the case of Malabar

MAHESH REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains\nof Rs.7,12,17,657/- on which deduction of Rs.4,82,00,000/- had\nbeen claimed u/s 54F of the IT Act. The assessee has not made any\nsubmissions regarding the alternative claim made in place of the\nclaim already made in the return, nor has he submitted the details\nof deduction claimed u/s 54F therefore, the claim

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

revision was effective from 01.06.2015 by introducing clause (a) of explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Ld.AR submitted that legal plea raised is challenging application of Explanation 2 (a) to section 263 (1) of the Act to present case by Ld.Pr.CIT. He submitted that the said Explanation 2 was inserted w.e.f. 01/06/2015

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

revised return of income but by way of a letter, the same may not be ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 17 of 26 accepted by the AO but the CIT (A) and tribunal has to examine and decide about such claim on merit and there is no restriction on these two authorities in doing so. The loss allowed

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

revised return of income but by way of a letter, the same may not be ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 17 of 26 accepted by the AO but the CIT (A) and tribunal has to examine and decide about such claim on merit and there is no restriction on these two authorities in doing so. The loss allowed

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

revised return of income but by way of a letter, the same may not be ITA Nos.1569, 1600, 1607 & 1608/Bang/2014 Page 17 of 26 accepted by the AO but the CIT (A) and tribunal has to examine and decide about such claim on merit and there is no restriction on these two authorities in doing so. The loss allowed