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

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

disallowance\nof deduction under section 54 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,80,33,694/- is\nbad in law and deserves to be deleted in its entirety.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the\nabove grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing.\nThe Appellant prays accordingly.\n2. We consider

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

1)\nBangalore\nRESPONDENT\nAppellant by\nRespondent by\nSri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. & Ms. Girija G.P., A.R.\nSri Kiran D., D.R.\nDate of Hearing\nDate of Pronouncement\nORDER\nPER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:\nThese two appeals by same assessee for the assessment years\n2017-18 & 2018-19 are directed against different orders passed by\nPCIT u/s 263 of the Income

BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALLI , HUBBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowances, and other determinations made by the AO\non facts and Law, however, for an appeal against a revision order u/s 263 of the Act,\nthe Tribunal is essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption\nof 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT's conclusion on “erroneous and\nprejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether

MOOG MOTION CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

1) Supreme Court Cases 21) wherein it observed that: "The mere fact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other. There are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive, mandatory and based on considerations of policy and some others may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be erroneous to attach equal importance

ADARSHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT SIRSI,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , HUBALLI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowances, and other determinations\nmade by the AO on facts and Law, however, for an appeal against a\nrevision order u/s 263 of the Act, the Tribunal is essentially confine\nitself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263\njurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT's conclusion on\n“erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

disallowances, and other determinations made by the AO on facts and Law, however, for an appeal against a revision order u/s 263 of the Act, the Tribunal is essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT’s conclusion on “erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether

BHAVANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMITA ,SIRSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowances, and other determinations made by the AO on facts and Law, however, for an appeal against a revision order u/s 263 of the Act, the Tribunal is essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT’s conclusion on “erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether

GONIKOPPAL PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,KODAGU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

disallowances, and other determinations made by the AO on facts and Law, however, for an appeal against a revision order u/s 263 of the Act, the Tribunal is essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT’s conclusion on “erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

disallowances, and other determinations made by the AO on facts and Law, however, for an appeal against a revision order u/s 263 of the Act, the Tribunal is essentially confine itself to examine (1) Whether the very assumption of 263 jurisdiction is valid (2) whether the PCIT’s conclusion on “erroneous and prejudicial” are sustainable in law and (3) Whether

VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowed. Therefore, he observed that reassessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue in terms of Page 4 of 14 section 263 of the act and not made proper verification / enquiry while making the assessments. Accordingly, he set aside the Assessment Order and directed to pass a denovo assessment with a direction

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BELLARY vs. M/S. SOUTH WEST MINING LIMITED, BELLARY

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito M/S. South West Mining Limited Aayakar Bhavan Staff Road Vidya Nagar Fort Bellary Near Talur Cross Karnataka Toranagallu Vs. Bellary 583 201 Karnataka Pan No : Aafcs9792M Appellant Respondent C.O. No.4/Bang/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita No.457/Bang/2023) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. South West Mining Limited Ito Vs. Bellary 583 201 Ward-1 Karnataka Bellary Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: This Appeal By Revenue & Co By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Dated 21.4.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Revenue In This Appeal Raised Following Ground: “Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.287.72 Crores Claimed Towards “Mine Development Expenditure” U/S 37(1) In The Computation Of Income Which Was Not Routed Through The Profit & Loss Account.”

1,39,740 tons of lignite equivalent to excavation-charges of Rs. 11.09 crores However, the Assessee Company was not able to raise any invoice on BLMCL as RERC had not approved the transfer price of the lignite till the year end. The ad-hoc approval of the lignite transfer price from RERC was received only in October 2011. Only

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

disallowing the claim of exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Act with respect to the capital gains on the long term equity shares and have failed to take cognizance of the DEMAT statement, contract notes, etc submitted during the course of assessment proceedings on the facts and circumstances. ii. The authorities below have erred in treating the long

WRITEMEN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1)(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance as per computation in the computation of income under normal provisions of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Grounds on calculation of tax liability under MAT provisions u/s 115JB of the Act: i. The learned authorities below are not justified in adopting the assessed income as Book profit while computing the income u/s 115JB

CISCO SYSTEMS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

263 of the Act, for the assessment year 2021–22, has been issued by ld. PCIT, Bengaluru–2, vide DIN and Notice No. ITBA/REV/F/2024-25/104737420731 dated 26.02.2025. The notice proposes to revise the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act on 29.12.2022 on the ground that the said order is erroneous and prejudicial

TESSOLVE SEMICONDUCTOR PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

1)\nSupreme Court Cases 21) wherein it observed that: “The mere\nfact that it is statutory does not matter one way or the other.\nThere are conditions and conditions. Some may be substantive,\nmandatory and based on considerations of policy and some\nothers may merely belong to the area of procedure. It will be\nerroneous to attach equal importance

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

263 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).\n2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, filed\nreturn of income for AY 2018-19 on 30-03-2019 by declaring total\nincome of Rs 4,06,38,068/- with tax payable amount of Rs\n1,84,24,220/-. The scrutiny assessment was completed

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

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

disallowed on the depreciation claimed on the WDV. Later on the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the learned Pr.CIT exercised his power under section 263 of the Act and this issue was also not touched by the learned Pr.CIT in his Order dated 30.03.2022 and the same order of the learned PrCIT was challenged before

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

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

disallowed on the depreciation claimed on the WDV. Later on the Order passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the learned Pr.CIT exercised his power under section 263 of the Act and this issue was also not touched by the learned Pr.CIT in his Order dated 30.03.2022 and the same order of the learned PrCIT was challenged before