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

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

house to make\nit better.\ne) No clarity under which section (i.e., 54 or 54F), the deduction\nwas claimed and allowed considering the nature and source of\nre-investment of LTCG.\n2.3 From the above, it is evident that the deduction u/s. 54/54F\nhas been allowed without proper examination of relevant details\nand materials. Accordingly, the assessment was completed

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

revision u/s 263 is the Valuer’s report wherein date of commencement of construction was assumed as March 2008 and completion of the house was stated as March 2011. Thus, it is stated that valuer’s report cannot form basis to come to conclusion that the amount was not invested in the new residential property

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

revision u/s 263 is the Valuer’s report wherein date of commencement of construction was assumed as March 2008 and completion of the house was stated as March 2011. Thus, it is stated that valuer’s report cannot form basis to come to conclusion that the amount was not invested in the new residential property

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

house property, business and other sources. The facts of the case that the assessees are one of the promoter shareholders of M/s. Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as “REPL”] holding about 2,66,565, and 5,05,670 equity shares in the said company. 4. During the financial year relevant to the earlier assessment year

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

house property, business and other sources. The facts of the case that the assessees are one of the promoter shareholders of M/s. Rangsons Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as “REPL”] holding about 2,66,565, and 5,05,670 equity shares in the said company. 4. During the financial year relevant to the earlier assessment year

T.D.RAJAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

u/s 263 only in the case when the order passed by the AO is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 10. In the case on hand, when there is enquiry by the AO on the issue of assessibility of income derived from sale of agricultural land by converting into the sites or plots then this case does

T.D.SATYAN vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao & 1. Shri T D Satyan (Huf), Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8587 J 2. Shri T D Rajan (Huf) Tds Residency, Kadur, Chikmagalur. Pan:Aabht 8586 K … Appellant Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikmagalur. … Respondent

u/s 263 only in the case when the order passed by the AO is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. 10. In the case on hand, when there is enquiry by the AO on the issue of assessibility of income derived from sale of agricultural land by converting into the sites or plots then this case does

SMT. PREETHI PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Preethi Prasad, 423, 19Th Cross, 1St & 3Rd Block (East), Jayanagar, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore-Ii, Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Gr Reddy, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09-9-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-9-2015 O R D E R

property is in Ireland which is outside India, therefore, the assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s 54F. iii) The amount of capital gain and sale proceeds was not available with the assessee at the time of purchase of new residential house. 6. As regards the cost of acquisition of the existing asset which was inherited by the assessee from

M/S. G CROP PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

house property declared by the assessee. Accordingly, the ld. D.R. submitted that there is total lack of application of mind on the part of the A.O. and hence Ld. Principal CIT has rightly invoked revision proceedings u/s 263

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

revise the assessment order is a conscious view adopted by the learned assessing officer, which is not shown to be erroneous and consequently, the jurisdiction Page 5 of 20 under section 263 of the Act stands ousted and accordingly the impugned order passed deserves to be cancelled. 15. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax despite the fact that

SRI. H. NAGARAJA,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

263 (revision of orders) of the Act. It was also held that it was not open for the assessee to seek deduction or claim expenditure, which had not been claimed in the original assessment, which assessment already stood completed, only because a assessment under Section 153A of the Act in pursuance of search or requisition was required to be made

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

House Property and remaining income earned under head Business & Profession amounting to Rs. 40,23,937/- claimed deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. 6) The claim of deduction is duly examined and found that the same is as per provisions of the Act. 7) The case of the assessee falls in the category of providing credit facilities

ITO, VIJAYAPUR vs. M/S BASAVAN BAGEWADI TALUKA PRIMARY TEACHERS CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY, VIJAYAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

house was completed within the period of three years from the date of entering in to joint development agreement and also failed to bring it to tax the additional compensation of Rs.10,27,400/- received from the builder. In response to the show cause notice assessee contended that for the purpose of computing the capital gains the date

SRI.LOKESH M, ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

u/s. 263. These appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 19.2.2019. Going by the sequence of dates and plea of assessee that it was owing to a different advice given by an earlier counsel that the appeals were not filed in time, in our view, has to be accepted. We therefore condone the delay in filing these appeals

SRI.LOKESH M, LR OF SMT MALATHI LOKESH ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

u/s. 263. These appeals have been filed before the Tribunal on 19.2.2019. Going by the sequence of dates and plea of assessee that it was owing to a different advice given by an earlier counsel that the appeals were not filed in time, in our view, has to be accepted. We therefore condone the delay in filing these appeals

M/S THE MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s 263 of the IT Act dated 29-11-2014 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment cannot be revised under the provisions of sec.263 of the IT Act, as the AO had failed to consider an item of provision for anticipatory loss in respect of turnkey projects of Rs.99,80,000/-. In response

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

revised u/s 263 of the Act. In paragraph 10 of the order the Hon'ble High Court observed that once the assessment is reopened, the assessing authority can take note of the income disclosed in the earlier return, any disclosed income found during the search or and also any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return

SHRI JITENDRA VIRWANI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

revised u/s 263 of the Act. In paragraph 10 of the order the Hon'ble High Court observed that once the assessment is reopened, the assessing authority can take note of the income disclosed in the earlier return, any disclosed income found during the search or and also any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return