BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

Housing, though the material found in the possession of the other person, the Assessing Officer was justified in considering the same in the proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Further the Act does not contemplate parallel proceedings under section 153A and 153C of the Act. The acceptance of the contention of the assessee would be contrary to the scheme

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that Act, the said rate will not apply: to the business profits of such trusts which are otherwise chargeable to fax. In other word, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1) (c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU vs. CMR JNANADHARA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

property for the benefit of the settlor, etc., contained in section 13(1)(c) and (d) of that Act, the said rate will not apply: to the business profits of such trusts which are otherwise chargeable to fax. In other word, where such a trust contravenes the provisions of section 13(1) (c) or (d) of the Act, the maximum

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

house at Nelamangala was in the name of the appellant's HUF, and not held in his individual capacity, as submitted during appellate proceedings. The appellant has also not given details of the utilization of the withdrawals and the reason for redeposit of the cash. The percentage of cash stated to be redeposited out of cash withdrawn earlier

M/S MANGALA INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

house property in the city of Madras, there was no direction to get them revalued under section 16A of the Act. The appellate orders for the years 1970-71 and 1972-73 had only directed the Assessing Officer to "go into the question as to the extent of the land owned by the assessee at No. 64, Luz Church Road

M/S SEA ROCK INVESTMENTS LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

house property in the city of Madras, there was no direction to get them revalued under section 16A of the Act. The appellate orders for the years 1970-71 and 1972-73 had only directed the Assessing Officer to "go into the question as to the extent of the land owned by the assessee at No. 64, Luz Church Road

M/S CHITRAKALA INVESTMENT TRADE & BUSINESS FINANCE LTD.,,MANIPAL vs. DCIT, UDUPI

In the result, the appeals filed by all the assessees are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava1. 2. 3. 1. M/S.Mangala Investments Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576 104. Pan: Aaacm 8838 R 2. M/S.Sea Rock Investments Ltd., Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan:Aaccs 4700 N 3. M/S.Chitrakala Investments Trade & Business Finance Ltd. Syndicate House, Manipal-576104. Pan: Aaacc 7246 H ... Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Udupi. ... Respondent Assessees By : Ms. Prathibha, Advocate. Respondent : Dr.Shakir Hussain, Cit(A) Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Are Appeals Filed By Three Assessees Against Identical Orders Of The Cit(A), Mysore, For The Assessment Year 1996-97. Ita Nos.1322 To 1324/Bang/2012 Page 2 Of 14 2. Since In All These Appeals Common Issues Are Involved, We Propose To Dispose Of The Same Vide This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

house property in the city of Madras, there was no direction to get them revalued under section 16A of the Act. The appellate orders for the years 1970-71 and 1972-73 had only directed the Assessing Officer to "go into the question as to the extent of the land owned by the assessee at No. 64, Luz Church Road

THE KARNATAKA STATE COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED ,BANGLAORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

166 taxmann.com 445 (Kerala) and further by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in West Bengal State Co-Operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. vs. DCIT reported [2025] 177 taxmann.com 469 (Calcutta)[06-08-2025]. 14.4 The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in above stated case is extracted as under: . Page

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

166\ntaxmann.com 327, the Hon’ble Court reiterated that the legislative intent\nbehind section 153D of the Act is to ensure the superior authority applies\nhis mind on the seized material before granting approval.\n\n17.8 Further reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court’s\ndecisions in Principal CIT v. Subodh Agarwal (2023) reported in 149\ntaxmann.com

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

house property, it can also set up another line of business, it may even pay dividends out of this income to its shareholders. There is no overriding title of anybody diverting the income at source to pay the amount to the creditors of the company. It is well- settled that tax is attracted at the point when the income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property’ nor ‘income from other sources’. In view of the explanation used in sub Section (4) of Section 10A of the Act for the purpose of Sub section 1, the profit derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount which bears to the profits of business of the undertaking. Though the said profits

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property’ nor ‘income from other sources’. In view of the explanation used in sub Section (4) of Section 10A of the Act for the purpose of Sub section 1, the profit derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount which bears to the profits of business of the undertaking. Though the said profits

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property’ nor ‘income from other sources’. In view of the explanation used in sub Section (4) of Section 10A of the Act for the purpose of Sub section 1, the profit derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount which bears to the profits of business of the undertaking. Though the said profits

DY.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property’ nor ‘income from other sources’. In view of the explanation used in sub Section (4) of Section 10A of the Act for the purpose of Sub section 1, the profit derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount which bears to the profits of business of the undertaking. Though the said profits

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillai

house property’ nor ‘income from other sources’. In view of the explanation used in sub Section (4) of Section 10A of the Act for the purpose of Sub section 1, the profit derived from export of articles or things or computer software shall be the amount which bears to the profits of business of the undertaking. Though the said profits