M/S AGNUS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2006-07

reassessment, held as under:- 1. The assessee has derived a short term capital gain by entering into a JDA on 15 3 2006 itself. 2. Since the cost of construction as per M/s Plama Developers Pvt. Ltd. is Rs 1600/per square feet (the cost for completion of the project which lasted about 4 years time from the date Page

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)

reassessment under section 147/148(1) and when any escapement of income is found even in an assessment made under section 147/148(1) still then notice under section 148(1) can be issued by assuming jurisdiction under that section. Finally, the ld. DR relied on the decisions in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (supra), CIT v. Abad

SHRI. K V SATISH BABU [HUF],MYSURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2[1], MYSURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12

section 2[47][v] of the Act were not applicable to the appellant's case for the year under appeal since the appellant had given possession over the agricultural lands to the Developer on 20/12/2012 that too after conversion of the said lands for nonagricultural purposes on 03/12/2012 and accordingly, the appellant had recognized transfer of the capital assets

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

47][v] of the Act read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act prior to enactment of Section 50-D of the Act which is with effect from 01/04/2013 and consequently, no capital gains was assessable at all from this angle of the matter as well. 10.2 Thirdly and without prejudice to the above, the learned

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

reassessment proceedings on this short ground. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, vehemently relies upon the orders of the authorities below and submits that there is no specific exclusion clause for the banking companies, and in the absence of such a clause, it is not open to us to infer the same. The submission of the learned counsel

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

reassessment notice issued under section 148 in a case where the original assessment was made under section 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion, still it is open to an assessee to challenge the notice on the ground that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

reassessment notice issued under section 148 in a case where the original assessment was made under section 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion, still it is open to an assessee to challenge the notice on the ground that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer after considering stand taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking section 2(47

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer after considering stand taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking section 2(47

M/S. S P R DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings Assessing Officer after considering stand taken by assessee held that since original development agreement and power of attorney were cancelled, it could not be treated as transfer under section 2(47) - However, AO treated advance received by assessee as windfall gain assessable as income from other sources - Whether since reopening of assessment was by invoking section 2(47

SRI PANATI VITTALANATH REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the assessment year 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri O.P.Meena

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in sub-section

SRI. N.G. CHANDRA REDDY (HUF),BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

V. Srinivasan, C.A. Respondent By : Smt. Renukadevi, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 20.06.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 20.7.2016. O R D E R Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dt.13.2.2015 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

v. CIT [1927] 2 ITC 304 (All) which has been referred to and in no way disapproved in Teomal's case [1959]36ITR9(SC). Once the ITO fails to follow the statutory course prescribed before assessment, it can be said, he misses the bus and cannot be given a second chance to rectify matters. It appears that the Tribunal

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

v. Pradeep Kumar Malhotra Vs. CIT 338 ITR 538 (Cal) vi. CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) Placing reliance on the above judgments, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessment under Section 153A can be made on the basis of seized material and further the addition should be strictly based on the evidence found

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

2(47)(v) of the Act. In such circumstances, the\nessential conditions of transfer having not been satisfied,\nthere can be no charge of capital gains under Section 45(1)\nof the Act in this assessment year.\n9. We also note that during reassessment

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

47 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n6.\nAs regards absence of recording non-satisfaction for invoking\nsatisfaction:\n6. 1. It is submitted that the Learned AO cannot invoke Section 14A in the\nabsence of recording non-satisfaction with regard to the claim of the\nassessee and without examining the accounts of the appellant and\nwithout rejecting its books

KARNATAKA BANK LTD,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALORE

Appeals of the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

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

V 270A 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 270A Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada

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

V 270A 18 not offered u/s 148 IBM United Kingdom 2017- 498/Bang/2024 Filed but In ROI filed 270A Limited 18 not offered u/s 148 Category E: 270A case where original return under section 139(1) of the Act has not been filed and receipts were offered to tax in the return filed under section 148 of the Act IBM Canada