ABHERAJ BALDOTA FOUNDATION ,HOSPET vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings, inadvertently allowed deduction of Rs.180.00 lakhs u/s 11(2) of the Act against the above said income of Rs.240.26 lakhs and the same has resulted in net addition of Rs.60.26 lakhs only, asagainst the proposed addition of Rs.91.65 lakhs u/s 11(3) of the Act, i.e., deduction to the extent of Rs.31.40 lakhs (being the shortfall between proposed

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

KOCH BUSINESS SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax — 6, Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Private Limited (2017) 82 Taxmann.com 300 (Delhi), wherein it is held that, reassessment resorted to on the basis of information from investigation wing without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax — 6, Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Private Limited (2017) 82 Taxmann.com 300 (Delhi), wherein it is held that, reassessment resorted to on the basis of information from investigation wing without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the position of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax — 6, Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Private Limited (2017) 82 Taxmann.com 300 (Delhi), wherein it is held that, reassessment resorted to on the basis of information from investigation wing without

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 BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

reassessment. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. To understand the issue raised by the assessee, we have to analyze the relevant provision, viz., the amendment to section 12A by the Finance Act, 2014 with effect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

reassessment. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. To understand the issue raised by the assessee, we have to analyze the relevant provision, viz., the amendment to section 12A by the Finance Act, 2014 with effect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

reassessment. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. To understand the issue raised by the assessee, we have to analyze the relevant provision, viz., the amendment to section 12A by the Finance Act, 2014 with effect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

reassessment. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. To understand the issue raised by the assessee, we have to analyze the relevant provision, viz., the amendment to section 12A by the Finance Act, 2014 with effect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

reassessment. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. To understand the issue raised by the assessee, we have to analyze the relevant provision, viz., the amendment to section 12A by the Finance Act, 2014 with effect

M/S BANDANTHAMMA MATHU KALAMMA TRUST ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), MYSORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

reassessment. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the Income Tax Authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. To understand the issue raised by the assessee, we have to analyze the relevant provision, viz., the amendment to section 12A by the Finance Act, 2014 with effect

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 and adding it to the total income of the assessee". 5. It can be seen that identical amount in dollar is considered as unexplained investment for all the years and for all the year identical ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 64 conversion rate of Rs. 40.26 is adopted. the conversion rate of dollar

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 69 of I.T. Act, 1961 and adding it to the total income of the assessee". 5. It can be seen that identical amount in dollar is considered as unexplained investment for all the years and for all the year identical ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 5 of 64 conversion rate of Rs. 40.26 is adopted. the conversion rate of dollar