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

164), Pranav, South Cross Road, Basavangudi, Bengaluru-560004 was covered. Thereafter, the case was centralized with the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru vide order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 05/03/2022 of the Principal Commissioner of income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) as well as 142(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU vs. ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI (HUF), BENGALURU

The appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

164\n3.6 Accordingly, they stated that they would be offering capital\ngains for the assessment year 2018-19 on the above basis in course\nof assessment proceedings after receipt of notice.\n3.7 Both these persons had accordingly filed returns in response\nto notice u/s.153C of the Act offering capital gains by adopting the\nvalue determined by the registered valuer

SRI ALAGAPPA ANNAMALAI(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

164\n3.6 Accordingly, they stated that they would be offering capital\ngains for the assessment year 2018-19 on the above basis in course\nof assessment proceedings after receipt of notice.\n3.7 Both these persons had accordingly filed returns in response\nto notice u/s.153C of the Act offering capital gains by adopting the\nvalue determined by the registered valuer

SRI ALAGAPPA MUTHIAH(HUF),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed\nand revenue appeals are dismissed

164\n3.6 Accordingly, they stated that they would be offering capital\ngains for the assessment year 2018-19 on the above basis in course\nof assessment proceedings after receipt of notice.\n3.7 Both these persons had accordingly filed returns in response\nto notice u/s.153C of the Act offering capital gains by adopting the\nvalue determined by the registered valuer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 148 of the\nAct to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for\nthat Assessment Year. Therefore the case was rightly reopened by the AO.\nThe learned CIT(A) has wrongly allowed appeal of the assessee.\n6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the Order\nof learned

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

section 132A. 50.3 Applicability-These\namendments will take effect from the 1st day of June, 2007.\"\n\n6.2 From the perusal of the section 153D of the Act read with the CBDT\nCircular No. 3 of 2008, dated 12-3-2008, the legislative intent can be gathered\nso far as that the legislature in its highest wisdom made it compulsory

AKSHAY KUMAR RUNGTA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.66/Bang/2024 Assessment Year :2015-16

164 taxmann.com 85 (Karnataka). He submitted that the Order must have been digitally signed. Section 282A(1) of the Act requires authentication of notices and other documents. He also referred to page 229 along with 233 of the paper Book and submitted that the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 19.01.2022 is digitally singed as mentioned

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

Section\n153D. It is not an exercise dealing with a immaterial matter which\ncould be corrected by taking recourse to Section 292B of the Act.\n16. We are not inclined to interdict the order of the Tribunal.\n17. Accordingly, the appeal is closed.\n6.5 The above view taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT

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

section 14A as computed under Rule 8D(2)(iii) cannot be more than the actual expenditure which can be relatable for earning the exempt income and debited to the Profit and Loss account. In the case on hand the disallowance made by the assessee on its own is not the total expenditure debited to the profit and loss account

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

capital gain tax can be levied. \" 53. Concluded at page 12\npara 21 as under:\n\"27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to\nits amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable\nto a banking company. We answer the question No. 2 in favour of the\nassessee and against

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

Capital Gain (Exempt Income)\n9,88,565\nIncome from Other Sources(as per return)\n9,74,634\nGross Total Income\n3,05,05,085\nLess Deduction U/C VI A\n1,68,750\nAssessed Income\n3,03,36,335\n\n4. Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act\ndated 28.2.2021, the assessee had preferred an appeal before

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

capital account. Therefore, the disallowance of exemption u/s 11 of the Act should be restricted to the shortfall of 85% of total income from actual amount applied. Hence, the shortfall of Rs. 50,23,822/- (1,47,63,150 – 97,39,328) should be brought to tax instead of Rs.76,29,084/- as done in intimation and accordingly granted relief

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

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

Capital Gains. [\"India-\nIreland DTAA\"]. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty\ndefining \"royalties\" would alone be relevant to determine\ntaxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the\nassessee as compared to section 9(l)(vi) of the Income-tax\nAct, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section\n90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

M/S. GOKULDAS EXPORTS,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Gokaldas Exports Vs. Dcit, Circle - 11(2) (Presently Gokaldas Exports Ltd.) Bengaluru No. 25, 2Nd Cross, 3Rd Main Industrial Suburb, Yashwanthpur Bengaluru 560022 Pan – Aaacg8239J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bangalore Dated 31.03.2004 For Ay 1995-06. This Is The Third Round Of Proceedings Before The Tribunal In Pursuant Of The Judgement Of The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional High Court In Ita No. 635 Of 2016 Order Dated 19.07.2022 Which Is Placed On Record On Pages 164 To 176 Of The Paper Book.

164 to 176 of the paper book. 2. The assessee filed additional grounds before the Tribunal on 27.03.2023 challenging legal as well as other issues as under: - “1. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is invalid in law without obtaining the sanction as per provisions of section 151(1) of the Act on the facts and circumstances

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENAGLURU

Capital Gains. [\"India-\nIreland DTAA\"]. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty\ndefining \"royalties\" would alone be relevant to determine\ntaxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the\nassessee as compared to section 9(l)(vi) of the Income-tax\nAct, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section\n90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Capital Gains. ["India- Ireland DTAA'']. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(l)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Capital Gains. ["India- Ireland DTAA'']. Article 12 of the aforesaid treaty defining "royalties" would alone be relevant to determine taxability under the DTAA, as it is more beneficial to the assessee as compared to section 9(l)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, as construed by the High Court. Here again, section 90(2) of the Income-tax Act, read

GOOGLE IRELAND LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(It)A No. 2845/Bang/2017 (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act after considering it in the manner that it has and then applying it to interpret the provisions under the Convention between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of Ireland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and for the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Section 69A of the Act.The addition is made out on basis of loose sheets of documents, which does not come under the ambit of ‘books of entry’ or as ‘evidence’ under the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on following decisions: 57  CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410  Common Cause and others Vs. Union of India