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

30,03,864\n3.\nDisallowance of Trust Expenses\n3,05,59,246\n4.\nExcess Claim of Depreciation on ATM, Note Counting\nMachine & Weighing Machine\n2,03,00,000\n5.\nPenalty for non-Deduction to Section 37(1)\n6.\nDisallowance u/s 14A\n7.\nDepreciation on Leased Assets\n8.\nLong Term Capital Gain on Sale of shares of CanFin\nHome

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

30 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Limited. execution of the development agreement and as a result the assessee was required to withhold tax at the time of payment of refundable security deposit under section 194IA. In support of this conclusion the A.O. has relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia

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

30 of 48 legislation is for purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former legislation or to explain a former legislation. We need not note the cornucopia of case law available on the subject because aforesaid legal position clearly emerges from the various decisions and this legal position was conceded by the counsel for the parties. In any case

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

30 per cent of the book profit and shall be charged to tax accordingly. The effective rate works out to 12 per cent of book profit calculated under the Companies Act. Companies engaged in the power and infrastructure sector will, however, be exempted from the levy of MAT." 22.15 On the basis of the aforesaid, it would be noted that

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 127 of the Act and the case has been rightly transferred from Circle 4(2)(1) to Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. There is no error in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by the present AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. This ground of the assessee is dismissed

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 127 of the Act and the case has been rightly transferred from Circle 4(2)(1) to Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. There is no error in assuming jurisdiction over the assessee by the present AO i.e. ACIT, Circle 1(2)(1), Bangalore. This ground of the assessee is dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings and submitted his response on various dates and therefore there is no necessity to invoke the provision of section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s.143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow some claim, it is mandatory

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings and submitted his response on various dates and therefore there is no necessity to invoke the provision of section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s. 143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow some claim, it is mandatory

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings and submitted his response on various dates and therefore there is no necessity to invoke the provision of section 144 of the Act. It is immaterial whether the AO has passed the order u/s. 143(3) or 144 of the Act, when there is a return and the AO wanted to disallow some claim, it is mandatory

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

30,800/-. Thus, from its Gross Income of Rs 5,71,54,412/- these are allowable deductions. The Balance Rs.60,24,612/- is the Net surplus income. This is also exempt U/sec 11(l)(a) as it is (10.54%) below the general Threshold of 15% of Gross Income specified in this section. Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga Page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRUST CIRCLE- 3(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BALDWIN BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, BANGALORE

30,06,240/- was determined. 5.2 It is submitted that before passing the assessment order on 27/03/2000, the Ld.AO did not issue the mandatory statutory notice u/s.143[2] of the Act, selecting the case for scrutiny assessment and this is manifest from the assessment order itself, though the same is mentioned in the Assessment order having issued to assessee

SRI. KEMPANNA (HUF - DISRUPTED),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07

section 143(2) on the basis of the aforesaid return which was non-est in law. The ratio decidendi of this judgement is that the AO is not required to issue notice u/s 143(2) at all, in a case where the assessee filed the return beyond the time limit prescribed for furnishing such return. It follows from this judgement

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Reassessment order can be by a different officer)." 19. We would reiterate that sub-section (1) to Section 124 states that the Assessing Officer would have jurisdiction over the area in terms of any direction or order issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to Section 120 of the Act. Jurisdiction would depend upon the place where

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

reassessment can be made. In case of completed assessments on the date of search, the assessment under Section 153A can be made only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of document or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed

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

30. We are entirely in agreement with the judgment of the Gujarat High Court especially the observation that the judgment of the Supreme Court is not restricted only to the investments made by the assessee from the amounts retained by it which were payable to its members and that the judgment also applies in respect of other funds not immediately

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis that has rejected the Assessee’s contention of ‘bonafide belief’. (Page 13-14 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has rejected the judicial

IBM ISRAEL LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis that has rejected the Assessee’s contention of ‘bonafide belief’. (Page 13-14 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has rejected the judicial

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis that has rejected the Assessee’s contention of ‘bonafide belief’. (Page 13-14 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has rejected the judicial

IBM CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

2) and section 197 of the Act are in the nature of safeguard sections to make sure that taxes are rightfully deducted on payments. - Assessee has not availed any of the safeguards and basis that has rejected the Assessee’s contention of ‘bonafide belief’. (Page 13-14 of the CIT(A)’s order) - The CIT(A) has rejected the judicial