DCIT, BANGALORE vs. SHRI. SUMIR J HINDUJA, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and COs filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aacph7291Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Deputy Commissioner Of Income- No.7 & 12, Industrial Suburb Tax Tumkur Road Vs. Circle 11(3) Yeshwanthpur Bangalore Bangalore 560 022 Pan No.Aaeph5197H Appellant Respondent C.O. No.48/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1373/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent C.O. No.49/Bang/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1374/Bang/2012) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Sumir J. Hinduja Vs. Dcit, Circl-11(3),Bangalore Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Susan Dolores George, D.R. Respondent By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, A.R.

d) In the absence of any reference to the presence for accumulated profits in the recorded reasons no reasonable belief could be formed of any dividend U/s 2(22)(e) which had escaped assessment. ITA Nos.1373 & 1374/Bang/2012 & CO. Nos.48 & 49/Bang/2013 Shri Jagadish N. Hinduja, Bangalore Page 9 of 78 (e) To justify action U/s 147 travel beyond the reasons recorded

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)

22,200 and book profit under section 115JB at Rs. 12,27,900. The return was processed on 26-2-2005 under section 143(1). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148(1) on 18-5-2005 which was served on the assessee on 24-5-2005. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were carried out by issuing notice under section

SMT.VIDYA DEVI LADHANI,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : These group of appeals by two assessees are directed against the two composite orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both dt.18.02.2015 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in the case of Smt. Vidya Devi Ladhani & for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 in the case

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

22,427/- and\nclaimed a refund of Rs.603,01,96,587/-. After the scrutiny of the\nreturn, the JCIT, LTU, Bangalore (the AO), completed the\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20.2.2019 by making following\nadditions and disallowance of claims/deduction claimed by\nthe assessee.\nPage 5 of 40\nSl.\nNo.\nNature of additions/disallowances\nAmount in Rs.\n1.\nDisallowance

SHARANABASAVESHWAR CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKRI NI HALINGALI,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, BIJAPUR

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

22. Again, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in still a later decision reported in the same volume of ITR in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. [2016] 389 ITR 607/76 taxmann.com 307 (Punj. & Har.) concurred with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat High Court, distinguishing the view taken

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

d) of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Goldman Sachs India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (International Taxation) 70 Taxmann.com 46 and submitted that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the said case and it was held that the transaction

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

2(22)(e). (vii) Grounds 13 to 15 – Alternate grounds raised without prejudice to the above grounds. 7. The assessee raised 15 grounds and several sub-grounds on issues listed above and presented arguments with regard to the same during the course of hearing. Though we heard the rival submissions with regard to all the grounds, for the purpose

M/S INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PARK LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-11(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

2(22)(e). (vii) Grounds 13 to 15 – Alternate grounds raised without prejudice to the above grounds. 7. The assessee raised 15 grounds and several sub-grounds on issues listed above and presented arguments with regard to the same during the course of hearing. Though we heard the rival submissions with regard to all the grounds, for the purpose

M/S ATRIA POWER CORPROATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2010-11

22 of 48 (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Delhi Electricity Reforms (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001 and provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 to the extent the same are not inconsistent with the Electricity Act/DERC Regulation. It was submitted in other words that in case of any variation/conflict in the aforesaid provisions, the assessee is bound to mandatorily follow/adopt the specific

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

22 of 64 Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, as stipulated therein, to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officer subordinate to him. In other words, under Section 127(1) the Pr. Director General or Director General or Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, as stipulated therein, can transfer

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

22 of 64 Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, as stipulated therein, to transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officer subordinate to him. In other words, under Section 127(1) the Pr. Director General or Director General or Pr. Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Pr. Commissioner or Commissioner, as stipulated therein, can transfer

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, dated 10.02.2025 vide DIN : ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073061567(1) for the AY 2015-16; vide DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073061747(1) for the AY 2016-17 and vide DIN : ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073061874

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the consolidated order of the ld. CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, dated 10.02.2025 vide DIN : ITBA/APL/M/250/2024- 25/1073061567(1) for the AY 2015-16; vide DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073061747(1) for the AY 2016-17 and vide DIN : ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1073061874

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S ATRIA HYDEL POWER LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, ITA Nos.534 to 556/Bang/2018 and CO Nos

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Years : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Atria Hydel Power Ltd., Ward - 1(1)(2), #1, Palace Road, Bengaluru. Bangalore-560 001. Pan : Aacca 3754 E Appellant Respondent

d) companies engaged in the generation or supply of electricity, except in so far as the said provisions are inconsistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003; Page 16 of 42 (e) any other company governed by any special Act for the time being in force, except in so far as the said provisions are inconsistent with the provisions

SRI BHASKAR RAJU,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

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

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

D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-6, Bengaluru and they relate to the assessment years 2007-08 and 2011-12. Both the appeals were heard together and hence they are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

D E R Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M. These present appeals are filed by the assessee against separate orders dated 05.10.2021 for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 23.09.2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal. 2 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das Grounds of appeal in IT (I.T)A No. 120/Bang/2022

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

D E R Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M. These present appeals are filed by the assessee against separate orders dated 05.10.2021 for Assessment Year 2014-15 and 23.09.2021 for Assessment Year 2017-18 on following grounds of appeal. 2 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das Grounds of appeal in IT (I.T)A No. 120/Bang/2022

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC dated 30.11.2022 for the assessment year 2020-21. The assessee has raised following grounds:- The Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, for the Asst Year 2020-210, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, is contrary