INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

disallowance of Rs.8,75,000 towards unsecured loan and deciding the matter based on additional evidences submitted by the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee could not produce any documents during the assessment proceedings which is contravened to the provision of Rule 46A(3). 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

1) In a case where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 has been made for the relevant assessment year, no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner, unless the Joint Commissioner is satisfied on the reasons recorded by such

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed. 4. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)’s Order, assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The grounds raised by the assessee read as follows: 1. The important question of law as to the belated filing of ITR after receipt of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and consequent disallowance

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1. The assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing officer under section 147 of the Act is without jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act and assumption of jurisdiction under section 147 of the Act is a mere change of opinion which is impermissible

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

disallowed in terms of explanation to section 37(1) of the Act and added back to the total income. 6. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the learned CITA() raising the legal issues as well as on merits. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved from the Order

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section and not with reference to the amount of provision made in the books of account. ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 31 4.7. The disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is based on surmises and conjunctures.” 21. During the assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, the AO noted that

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section and not with reference to the amount of provision made in the books of account. ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 31 4.7. The disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is based on surmises and conjunctures.” 21. During the assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, the AO noted that

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section and not with reference to the amount of provision made in the books of account. ITA Nos. 227 to 229/Bang/2023 Page 16 of 31 4.7. The disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is based on surmises and conjunctures.” 21. During the assessment proceedings for AY 2011-12, the AO noted that

THE ARCHDIOCESAN BOARD OF EDUCATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. The Archdiocesan The Deputy Board Of Education, Commissioner Of Archbishop’S House, No. 75 Income Tax Vs. Millers Road, Benson Town, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 046. Circle – 1, Pan: Aabat5296P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 for the year under consideration. On facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable, exemption under section 11 should be allowed as claimed in the return of income. 9.2 Assuming without admitting that the appellant is not eligible for exemption under section 11, the learned AO and CIT(A) have erred in Page

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

148 and the income has been assessed for the first time, the amount of tax calculated on the under-reported income as increased by the maximum amount not chargeable to tax as if it were the total income; (b)where the total income determined under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or assessed, reassessed or recomputed

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

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

148 of the Act declaring income of Rs.44,60,860/- as declared in return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act which was not e- verified. In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) fo the Act dated 18.10.2021 was communicated to the assessee for compliance for the Assessment Year under consideration. Further a notice dated 22.02.2022 was issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 40(a)(ia) and taxes paid on the same, there is no loss to revenue to the Government as the revenue is more than adequately compensated in the form of higher taxes by the deductor due to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). In this regard, the Company had made a detailed submission before the learned AO vide submission dated

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 40(a)(ia) and taxes paid on the same, there is no loss to revenue to the Government as the revenue is more than adequately compensated in the form of higher taxes by the deductor due to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). In this regard, the Company had made a detailed submission before the learned AO vide submission dated

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 40(a)(ia) and taxes paid on the same, there is no loss to revenue to the Government as the revenue is more than adequately compensated in the form of higher taxes by the deductor due to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). In this regard, the Company had made a detailed submission before the learned AO vide submission dated

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

disallowance of deduction claimed under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.—Deductions in respect of certain incomes" (which includes deduction under section 80P of the Act), can be made if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139. This amendment has been introduced w.e.f. 1

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S WIPRO LTD.,, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountantmember & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014 Assessmentyear:2009-10

disallow depreciation on such capitalized amount as the aforesaid provision does not deal with deduction of depreciation. Having considered arguments from both the sides, we are of the view that there is no error in the order of the learned CIT(A) which requires correction from us. Thus, this ground is also dismissed." Following the decision rendered by the coordinate