MAHESHWARA REDDY VENKATAREDDY JONNALA,BYADGI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HAVERI

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance was made in reassessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 31.3.2022. 6. The assessee aggrieved

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

NVIDIA GRAPHICS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee s party allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Nvidia Graphics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Mahadevpura Village, Central Circle – 2(4), K. R. Puram Hobli, Marathalli Bangalore. Bagmane Goldstone Building, North Tower, Mahadevpura S.O, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan : Aabcn 9200 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024

reassessment order was passed making disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), since assessee had not deducted TDS as detailed in Form

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment was subsequently completed on 22.05.2019 by disallowing expenses of Rs.27,07,39,409/- in the hands of the assessee

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

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

disallowing the depreciation on intangible assets of a sum of\nRs.3,26,25,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.\n\n7.\nThe authorities below failed to appreciate that it is not for the\nAssessing Officer to sit on the armchair of the businessman and\ndecide as to what consideration ought to have been paid for\npurchase

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result ITA no.1096/bang/2024 filed by assessee is partly\nallowed and ITA No

disallowance to the\nextent of Rs.5,24,54,000/- made on account of\nunexplained expenditure of Rs.7,65,54,000/-.\n5. Any other grounds which may be urged at the time of\nhearing.”\n4. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is a charitable trust\nregistered u/s.12A of the Act as per Certificate issued dated\n17.7.1974 and therefore

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

reassessing the income for the assessment year after the limitation period of four years from the end of the assessment year. as provided in the first proviso to the erstwhile section 147. 2.2. The learned assessing officer has erred by not appreciating the fact that the disallowance

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

reassessing the income for the assessment year after the limitation period of four years from the end of the assessment year. as provided in the first proviso to the erstwhile section 147. 2.2. The learned assessing officer has erred by not appreciating the fact that the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY vs. M/S VIRGO PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment proceedings u/s.148. Therefore,\nthe indexation for cost improvement is disallowed and the long term\ncapital gain on sale of land

MR. NATESHAN SAMPATH,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, MANGALORE vs. L JAVERCHAND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 L. Javerchand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. No.1, 2Nd Floor & 3Rd Floor, Choksi Chamber Dcit 1Stagyari Lane Vs. Central Circle-1 Zaveri Bazar Mangaluru Mumbai 400 002

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition

HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD) CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit (Osd), No.10/6, Lavelle Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaach 7551 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Akshita, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ramanathan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

reassessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act by disallowing interest expenditure of Rs.1,08,30,193/- and thereby

R C ADVISORS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Therefore, it is apparent that reassessment notice has been issued on appreciation of the same

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BENGALURU vs. G. TEX INC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11

disallowing the above payment of Rs.5,80,52,487/- while framing above impugned reassessment order. Against this assessee went in appeal

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

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

reassessed or\nrecomputed in a preceding order.\n(11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

HEWLETT-PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-(1)(1) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment order was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Aggrieved by the disallowances confirmed by ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

M/S. PANJOS BUILDERS PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2007-08

reassessment order framed in this case on this primary issue. As such, there should be disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act. 6.3 Thus