M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5,34,77,332 Commercial 1,40,62,786 - - - 1,33,34,195 12,00,07,752 Total 7,03,54, - - - 1,61,48,791 17,34,85,084 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

5,34,77,332 Commercial 1,40,62,786 - - - 1,33,34,195 12,00,07,752 Total 7,03,54, - - - 1,61,48,791 17,34,85,084 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia

TUNGABHADRA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA,SINDHANUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

11) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard is given to the assessee and the Assessing Officer on such directions which are prejudicial to the interest of the assessee or the interest of the revenue, respectively. (12) No direction under sub-section (5) shall be issued after nine months from

THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

reassess the income of the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case 6. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that consent cannot confer jurisdiction to the learned Assessing officer to disallow the investments under section 11(5

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

5, for " whichever is later" (w.e.f. 1.4.1997).]: [Provided that where an application for registration of the trust or institution is made after the expiry of the period aforesaid, the provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall apply in relation to the income of such trust or institution,- (i)from the date of the creation of the trust or the establishment

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

5 of 53\nunder section 131(1) of the Act as on 05th November 2019 wherein it\nwas enquired about the admissions, he got done in the assessee's\nmedial college. To which, he replied that during the financial year 2019-\n20, he got the admissions of 15 students in MBBS courses (relevant\nseized materials Pages

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

5 of 53\nunder section 131(1) of the Act as on 05th November 2019 wherein it\nwas enquired about the admissions, he got done in the assessee's\nmedial college. To which, he replied that during the financial year 2019-\n20, he got the admissions of 15 students in MBBS courses (relevant\nseized materials Pages

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

5 of 53\nunder section 131(1) of the Act as on 05th November 2019 wherein it\nwas enquired about the admissions, he got done in the assessee's\nmedial college. To which, he replied that during the financial year 2019-\n20, he got the admissions of 15 students in MBBS courses (relevant\nseized materials Pages

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES, KOLAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

5 of 53\nunder section 131(1) of the Act as on 05th November 2019 wherein it\nwas enquired about the admissions, he got done in the assessee's\nmedial college. To which, he replied that during the financial year 2019-\n20, he got the admissions of 15 students in MBBS courses (relevant\nseized materials Pages

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(4), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD), KOLAR

5 of 53\nunder section 131(1) of the Act as on 05th November 2019 wherein it\nwas enquired about the admissions, he got done in the assessee's\nmedial college. To which, he replied that during the financial year 2019-\n20, he got the admissions of 15 students in MBBS courses (relevant\nseized materials Pages

M/S. SRI. DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES(REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

5 doctors from\nwhom capitation fee of Rs.2.505 crores were charged out of which\n1.735 crores received and Rs.77 lakh was yet to be received. Below that\nit mentions Old PG allegedly on which capitation of fee of Rs.1.2 crore\nwas charged which has been fully received.\n4.4\nWhen the impugned excel sheet and statement of cashier Shri P\nNarayanaswami

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,KOLAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

5 of 53\nunder section 131(1) of the Act as on 05th November 2019 wherein it\nwas enquired about the admissions, he got done in the assessee's\nmedial college. To which, he replied that during the financial year 2019-\n20, he got the admissions of 15 students in MBBS courses (relevant\nseized materials Pages

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

reassessment or recomputation or fresh assessment, as the case may be, expires'. Since the time limit for passing of the order by the TPO is not direct but is linked with the time limit as per section 153, the legislature did not insert any sunset clause in section 153, which would have otherwise made the provision of sub-section

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 of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

11,86,426/- to tax in the statement U/s. 132(4) only after being confronted with the evidences found during the course of search. 5. The CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee without going into the merits of the case. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged upon, the order