CHANGAAI MANGALOTE IBRAHIM,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

270/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore Page 2 of 14 3. Grounds on disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 54F, Rs.8,00,00,001/-: a. The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.8,00,00,001/- under the head 'capital gains' on the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

270) and held that the provision made in the accounts relating to rural debts alone should be considered to arrive at the deduction u/s 36(1 During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee Bank had reduced the claim by Rs. 7,35,24,597/- being provision pertaining to 3 branches, where the population exceeded 10,000 as per latest

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

RAAJRATNA ENERGY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

Accordingly, this\nground is allowed for statistical purposes

section 56(2)(viib) of the\nAct for the Assessment Year 2017-18. Further for the Assessment Year 2018-\n19, AO has disallowed short term capital loss of Rs.5,10,000/- as per his Order\nat para No.5 on sale of investment in Venu Hydro Powers Ltd., and observed\nthat the assessee has claimed excess long term capital loss

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

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: ITA Nos. 391, 392 & 663/Bang/2023 Page 13 of 31 "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: ITA Nos. 391, 392 & 663/Bang/2023 Page 13 of 31 "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain tax can be levied. " 53. Concluded at page 12 para 21 as under: ITA Nos. 391, 392 & 663/Bang/2023 Page 13 of 31 "27. In the result, we hold that sub-section 115JB as it stood prior to its amendment by virtue of Finance Act, 2012, would not be applicable to a banking company. We answer the question

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

capital gain was declared at Rs. 29,74,951 by the assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

270/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 15. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [iv]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

270/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 15. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [iv]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

270/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 15. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [iv]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

RAMAMURTHY PRAVEEN CHANDRA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, we have allowed grounds raised by the assessee as per above terms for all the years

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

270/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed under section 143 15. [3] r.w.s. 153C of the Act under the impugned order on the ground that:- [iv]. The learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of proceedings under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. VIJAYA BANK, BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

In the result, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

270 which resulted into assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act at Rs.422,71,99,213. Assessee is a nationalized bank in which majority of shares are held by Central Government. The Regular assessment was completed u/s 143(3) as per order dated 07-02-2013. The Assessment was re-opened by issuing a Page 3 of 8 notice

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

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

270,36,033 wherein amount recoverable from employees and used materials not returned or excess material is drawn amounting to ₹ 22,46,874/- is mentioned. Therefore apparently from the books of accounts of the assessee its shows that this is provided as bad and doubtful debts. Therefore now the question of claiming the same as a business loss does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

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

270,36,033 wherein amount recoverable from employees and used materials not returned or excess material is drawn amounting to ₹ 22,46,874/- is mentioned. Therefore apparently from the books of accounts of the assessee its shows that this is provided as bad and doubtful debts. Therefore now the question of claiming the same as a business loss does