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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order\nenhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or\notherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for\nany assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001.\n9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the\npurposes of computing

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 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

31 of 48 retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended. The language 'shall be deemed always to have meant

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

31,21,100/- 3 2016-17 2017-18 5,68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- Α.Υ. 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Contract charges as per ledger

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

31. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

31,21,100/- 3 2016-17 2017-18 5,68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- A.Y. Contract charges as per ledger

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

31,21,100/- 3 2016-17 2017-18 5,68,161/- ii) With regard to Shri Chota Hari, as the party was not traceable, the year-wise expenditure were added back to total income as under- A.Y. Contract charges as per ledger

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

reassessment proceedings were pending before the Assessing Officer. In the case of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Platforms (Supra), ITAT has relied upon the judgment in the case of Shree Shyam Mandir Committee (Supra), wherein it was held that appeal in continuation of original assessment proceedings and proceedings before the appellate Shri Hingulambika Education Society, Gulbarga Page

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)

31,10,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 of the Act is not applicable and consequently invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act is invalid in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Appellant

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)

31,10,000/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 69 of the Act is not applicable and consequently invoking the provision of section 115BBE of the Act is invalid in law on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The Appellant

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

31 days stipulated in the notice u/s 148 of the Act. 1.2 Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 13-12-2013, approximately 10 months after furnishing of return of income in response to notice u/s 148. The assessee's contention is that the said notice u/s 143(2) was issued beyond the time limit allowed under the proviso

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

2), has no jurisdiction over the appellant, to issue notice dated 28-3-2018 under section 148(1). Though the files pertaining to the reassessment proceedings of the appellant were transferred, the second respondent has no authority to continue the reassessment proceedings under section 129 and hence, the notice dated 14-12-2018 issued by him is also held

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

31. Mr. Bansal relied upon the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. A. P. State Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2011] 336 ITR 516 (AP). The judgment is distinguishable. In that case, the respondent-assessee was a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking and it was held that the assessees were subject

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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis

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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis

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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis

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

reassessment proceedings. IT(IT)A Nos.487 to 504/Bang/2024 & IT(IT)A Nos.541 to 546/Bang/2024 IBM Canada Limited & Others Page 31 of 56 Observation of the CIT(A) Rebuttal to the CIT(A)’s observations - Reference to Explanation 3 to section not file a return under section 139 of the 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld Act basis