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

disallowances in the assessment u/s 153A of the Act and therefore, there is no error committed by the AG in this regard requiring revision u/s 263

JANATA TRADERS,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

revised u/s 263 of the Act. The notice was sent by e-mail on 8.3.22 which was duly delivered on 8.3.22. A copy of the notice was also sent by speed post. In response, the assessee has filed his submission online wherein it has stated that the cash deposits were made out of cash sales from

M/S CORPORATE BANK ,MANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MANGALORE

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

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

Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.58.58 crore made in the regular computation. (iii) Provision for Non Performing Assets of Rs.1438.11 crore. 3. The assessee-bank filed written submission, objecting to the proposed revision u/s 263

M/S HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT - 3, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income-Tax, [Formerly Known As Symphony Bangalore - 3. Teleca Corporation India Private Limited) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No. 85 & 86, Sadarmangla Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2018 O R D E R

revision u/s 263 of the Act on this issue has been resorted to only because disallowance under this head was not made

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

u/s 263.\n2. Grounds relating to the order passed under section 263 of the Act:\n2.2 The learned Pr. CIT erred in refusing to allow sufficient opportunity.\n2.2The order of the learned Pr. CIT is against the principles of natural\njustice as sufficient time was not given to the assessee to furnish the\nnecessary. details.\n2.3 The learned

MAHESH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

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

u/s 263.\n2. Grounds relating to the order passed under section 263 of the Act:\n2.2 The learned Pr. CIT erred in refusing to allow sufficient opportunity.\n2.2The order of the learned Pr. CIT is against the principles of natural\njustice as sufficient time was not given to the assessee to furnish the\nnecessary. details.\n2.3 The learned

SHRI. POLLAMREDDY SREEDHAR REDDY,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

revised was passed by the Ld. AO after due application of mind and after examining all the documentary evidence and considering all the explanations given by the Appellant in relation to all expenditure including those sought to be disallowed u/s 14A and the Ld. PCIT has merely substituted his own opinion in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263

M/S. SAMPRASIDDHI INFRATECH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

disallowed. After considering the submissions, the learned assessing officer has applied his mind and accepted the returned income of the assessee. The assessee relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (enclosed at page no 91 to 100 of the paper book) wherein it is held that lack

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

revise each and every assessment order. The applicability of the clause is thus essentially contextual. It has to be the opinion of a prudent person properly instructed in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India reported in 1978 AIR (SC) 597 has laid down the law that a public authority should discharge his duties

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 in the following cases: (i) The order sought to be revised contains error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it. (ii) The order sought to be revised proceeds on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice

M/S. ETA STAR INFOPARK,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 in the following cases: (i) The order sought to be revised contains error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it. (ii) The order sought to be revised proceeds on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice

SMT Y S MYTHILY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s 263 dated 25/08/2016 proposing to revise the assessment as the consideration was not deposited in capital gains scheme before due date for filing return of income and therefore proposed to disallow

SMT Y S MYTHILY ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s 263 dated 25/08/2016 proposing to revise the assessment as the consideration was not deposited in capital gains scheme before due date for filing return of income and therefore proposed to disallow

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

revised return of income. Accordingly, the A.O. raised demand of Rs.80,38,85,646 (including interest) in the said assessment order. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2017, disposed of the appeal of the assessee. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee

GURU PAVAN RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 of the Act dated 12/03/2021 proposing to revise the assessment order passed u/s. 143[3] of the Act, dated 29/10/ 2018 on the ground that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. According to him, the deduction claimed in respect of interest paid on loan borrowed from HSBC Invest Direct Financial Services [India

ANIRUDH MURTHY RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 of the Act dated 12/03/2021 proposing to revise the assessment order passed u/s. 143[3] of the Act, dated 29/10/ 2018 on the ground that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. According to him, the deduction claimed in respect of interest paid on loan borrowed from HSBC Invest Direct Financial Services [India

ARJUN M RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

263 of the Act dated 12/03/2021 proposing to revise the assessment order passed u/s. 143[3] of the Act, Page 5 of 22 dated 29/10/2018 on the ground that the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. According to him, the deduction claimed in respect of interest paid on loan borrowed from HSBC Invest Direct Financial

KODAGU JILLA VANIJODHYAMIGALA VIVIDHODHESHA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITHA R,KODAGU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

disallowed the same has not being eligible for deduction u/s 80P. 4. The PCIT proposed to revise the order of the AO u/s 263