DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144 of the Act after considering the documents/material available before him and computed the gross total income at Rs.3,73,98,834/- as under: - Income from House property Rs.3,48,933 Income from Business Rs.3,12,000 Add: Income from Other sources Rs.5,35,221 Add: Unexplained cash credits in bank accounts Rs.1,12,02,680 Add: Unexplained capital

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2 of 22 the Chartered Accountant, it is stated that he had wrongly advised the assessee not to file appeal as against the impugned order under section 263 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18 since the AO for Assessment Year 2018-19 had accepted the contention of the assessee and taxed the additional income at normal rates

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

2 of 22 the Chartered Accountant, it is stated that he had wrongly advised the assessee not to file appeal as against the impugned order under section 263 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18 since the AO for Assessment Year 2018-19 had accepted the contention of the assessee and taxed the additional income at normal rates

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

SRI. GIREESHSHASTRI SHANKARSHASTRI JEERE ,GAJENDRAGAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner Of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. Pan : Agupj 2460 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023

Property’, ‘Income from Business and Profession’ and ‘Income from Other Sources’. There was a survey conducted in the clinic of the assessee under section 133A of the Act on 16.11.2017. During the course of survey, certain books of accounts and documents were impounded. Statement of the assessee was also recorded. Thereafter, statement under section 131 of the Act was recorded

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

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 the assessment proceeding was completed after thorough scrutiny, erred in holding that, the Assessing Officer has failed to redraw the brought forward losses. set off allowed and carry forward losses being

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

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

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

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Bharath Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru Page 2 of 30 Bharath Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru Page 3 of 30 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

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

Houses of\nParliament.\"\n43. The enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth\nSchedule referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 105 consists of the\nfollowing thirteen Parliamentary enactments, namely:\n“THE FOURTH SCHEDULE\n[See section 105]\nLIST OF ENACTMENTS REGULATING LAND ACQUISITION AND\nREHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT\n1. The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains

BINDUMALYAM PANDURANGA ALLANHARINARAYAN ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly\nallowed

263 ITR 197\n(Gujarat), which lays down that if the owner of a property carries on\nupon the property some activities which results in profits & gains\narising, not from the ownership but from the use thereof, such\nprofits & gains would be chargeable to tax as business income and\nnot income under the head “income from house property”. In fact

M/S. MUKKA PROTENIS LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

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

2. The power to revise orders of the Income-tax Officer under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was sought to be limited by the appellant-assessee by contending that the phrase "order passed by the Income-tax Officer" in section 263 excluded those orders passed by the Income-tax Officer pursuant to the directions of the Inspecting

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing and Plantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s 27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page

IBM CHINA HONG KONG LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\nPage 26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada

IBM CANADA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\nPage 26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Housing and\nPlantation Corporation (supra); in our view the issue regarding penalty u/s\n27l(l)(c) of IT Act disputed in the appeals before us is covered in favour of\nthe assessee by the aforesaid orders; and, therefore, we hold that the\nPage 26 of 56\nIT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 &\nIT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024\nIBM Canada