INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the Revenue has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The learned DR relied on the grounds raised. 8. The learned AR, on the other hand, supported the findings of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

MR K. P. MANJUNATHA REDDY,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

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

22 of 66 No.1169 to 1172/Bang/2015, order dated 27.5.2016 in the case of Shri M.R. Anandaram (HUF) & Ors. wherein it was held as under:- “9. But in the instant case, the issue in dispute is with regard to chargeability of the capital gain on the impugned transaction. Our attention was drawn to the order of the Tribunal in the connected

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. PRASHANTH PRAKASH, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2009-10

d) According to the AO, the information furnished by M/s. Total Environment Building System Pvt. Ltd. u/s 133(6), showed that the registration of the said property was made only in May 2011 as evidenced by the sale deed dt. 2nd May, 2011. According to the AO, u/s 54F(4) deduction is allowable only has within a period of three

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD 1, UDUPI, UDUPI vs. BRAHMAVARA VYAVASAYA SEVA, BRAHMAVARA

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the Revenue has filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. The learned DR relied on the grounds raised. 8. The learned AR, on the other hand, supported the findings of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

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

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

22,427/- and\nclaimed a refund of Rs.603,01,96,587/-. After the scrutiny of the\nreturn, the JCIT, LTU, Bangalore (the AO), completed the\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20.2.2019 by making following\nadditions and disallowance of claims/deduction claimed by\nthe assessee.\nPage 5 of 40\nSl.\nNo.\nNature of additions/disallowances\nAmount in Rs.\n1.\nDisallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, MANGALORE vs. SHRI.P.M.A.RAZAK, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

capital gains arising before the1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub- clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those sub- clauses

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

Capital b) ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 48 of 78 c) The earliest release of the company from its guarantees given by it for the loans and advances enjoyed by its associates namely Personality Limited and Gokaldas Intimatewear Private Limited. d) The release of the company from its obligation to Acquire the Trade

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. JAGADISH N HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

Capital b) ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 48 of 78 c) The earliest release of the company from its guarantees given by it for the loans and advances enjoyed by its associates namely Personality Limited and Gokaldas Intimatewear Private Limited. d) The release of the company from its obligation to Acquire the Trade

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

2(22)(d) of the Act and consequently levy of Dividend Distribution Tax (‘DDT’) under Section 115(O) of the Act. The brief facts leading to the controversy are that 99.99% of the shares of the assessee are held by M/s. FIS Holding Muritian Ltd. which is incorporated in Mauritius. During the year under consideration, the assessee has bought back

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1& TPS, BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

22,40,864 in fixed deposits, the assessee received interest of Rs.36,35,296 to which the AO has not allowed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Act, whereas the assessee has claimed deduction of such amount u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee submits that it is operational income because

SANGAM CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2 , BAGALKOT

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

22,40,864 in fixed deposits, the assessee received interest of Rs.36,35,296 to which the AO has not allowed deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) or 80P(2)(d) of the Act, whereas the assessee has claimed deduction of such amount u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee submits that it is operational income because

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

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

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act." 22. Again, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in still a later decision reported in the same volume of ITR in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 607/76 taxmann.com 307 (Punj. & Har.) concurred with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A) dated 21.11.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- The impugned order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the (2) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal - 6 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for assessment year

DR. L.S. RAVI PRAKASH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

section. It was submission of the Ld. A.R. that the advance made in the assessment year under consideration only is to be considered to the extent of accumulated profits as on 31.3.2010 for all the 3 companies and not the profit earned by assessee in the assessment year under consideration and the profit earned in that assessment year under consideration

M/S JAICO AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11(5), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

d) Brokerage and legal charges Rs. 22,21,360 18. Thus, capital gain of Rs.5,55,31,547 was offered for taxation. In respect of Rs.5 crores for improvement, the assessee claimed an amount Page 11 of 40 of Rs.1,63,70,521 as expenses towards cost of fencing of the property. The income arising therefrom to the tune

M/S. PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARA NIYAMITA,HOSAPETE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BALLARI

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuprathamika Krishi Pattina Vs The Income Tax Officer Sahakara Sangha Niymit Ward - 2 No. 350, Ward No. 15, Hospet 583201 Amaravathi Village, Hospet Tq. Ballari - 583201 Pan – Aaajp0326N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, Irs (Retd) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 13.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.02.2023 O R D E R Per: Laxmi Prasad Sahu, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi In Appeal Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/ 250//2022-23/1047496227(1) Dated 18.11.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Impugned Assessment Order Made U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated, 25-11-2019, Is Arbitrary & Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Principles Of Natural Justice & Therefore, The Same Is Liable To Be Vacated As Void. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate: (I) That The Interest Income Accruing From The Investments Made In Statutory Compliance Of The Provisions Of The State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 Is Eligible For The Deduction As Business Income U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Act.

22-11-2021 has held that the interest income on statutory investments is eligible for the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Para 7.2 of pages 14 & 15 of the said order is as under: "7.2. In the instant case, it was contended that majority of the interest income is earned out of investments made with Central Co-operative Banks

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948 , and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.-- The expression" accumulated profits" in sub- clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

M/S. ABB LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDL. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 1997-98

D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 30.09.2010 of CIT(A), LTU, relating to AY 1997-98. 2. During the previous year relevant to AY 1997-98, the Assessee was engaged in the business of Manufacturing and trading. The Assessee as Page 2 of 45 part