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.

2(22)(e) or otherwise and the same has been dealt separately in the order. I, therefore, hold that the AO had sufficient reason to believe that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment and he was justified in taking action taken by him u/s 147 of the Act to reopen the appellant's assessment for the assessment year

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

Section 2(22)(e) cannot be made in the reassessment as there was no incriminating material the assessees. 8. On the other

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

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 of convenience

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)

e-return. The manual copy of the return filed is filed. As per the AIR and CIB information base, it is also seen that the assessee has deposited a total cash of Rs.1,12,02,680 in the Savings Bank Accounts maintained by him. 3 As per the AIR information, the assessee has also received interest of Rs.1

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

reassessment / non-deduction of TDS at source shall be issued where buyback of shares has taken place prior to 1.6.2013 and the case is covered under Section 46A read with section 2(22)(iv) of the Act. In cases where notices have already been issued and assessment proceedings are pending, tax authorities shall complete the assessment keeping in view

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

SRI RAJESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2005-06

2[22][e] of the Act and disallowance of business loss of Rs. 14,379/- is not based on seized materials or incriminating materials found and seized during the Page 4 of 18 course of search under section 132 of the Act and consequently the learned assessing officer had no jurisdiction for issuance of a notice under section 153A

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. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act and to that extent income has escaped assessment. The assessee filed its objections challenging the validity of the reassessment

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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(1) for the AY 2017-18 passed

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

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(1) for the AY 2017-18 passed

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

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 of such special Act; and (f) such body corporate, incorporated by any Act for the time being in force, as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, subject

NITESH SHETTY ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2007-08

22(e) is found to be as per law. And hence the same is upheld, sustained and confirmed.” 6. Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 7. At the outset, Ld.AR submitted that, assessee has raised following additional grounds vide application dated 31/10/2018 on merits as under: “1. Without prejudice, the addition

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)

e-assessment portal on 15.07.2019 by ITO- Ward- International Taxation-1(1), Bangalore calling for details. 7.2. The Ld.AR submitted that ITO-Ward-International Taxation never issued a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee, and therefore did not assume jurisdiction to pass the assessment 13 IT(IT)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 Bangalore Narayan Das order. Referring