VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

ia) of the\nAct was disallowed. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment on\n24.03.2022., but interesting to note that the AO has discussed the disallowance\nof interest at para NO. 9.2, 9.3 & 9.4 of his order but while assessing the income\nthere is no addition made on the assessed income, hence, we will not adjudicate\nthis ground

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

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. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

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. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

M/S SYNDICATE BANK,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, UDUPI

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

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. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

ia) of the Act the interest expenditure were disallowed. But while\ncomputing assessed income The disallowance of interest was not added and loss\nclaimed in the return was disallowedAccordingly, the AO completed the\nassessment on 24.03.2022.\n\n4.\nAggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A).\nThe legal grounds challenging the notice issued under section

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

35,430\n2,42,74,500 2,97,89,500\n1,48,60,000\n7,23,59,430\n2,13,37,000 3,16,21,500\n1,43,94,500\n6,73,53,000\nTOTAL

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

reassessment proceeding also makes the order bad in law and such order is liable to be quashed. 3.1 In any case and without prejudice, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the provisions of Section 50C of the Act are applicable in the instant case and thus confirming the additions made by Assessing officer

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT - PACKARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 271 of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit. substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal, so as to enable

HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

section 271 of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit. substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing, of the appeal, so as to enable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

35 of 77\nthe statute since the very inception of that section & thus, if any\nmaterial which is seized in a search conducted u/ 132 is to be used to\nassess a person who is not searched, the AO would have to necessarily\ninitiate proceedings under section 153C of the Act, in order to do the\nsame & proceeding, if initiated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

35 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nthe statute since the very inception of that section & thus, if any\nmaterial which is seized in a search conducted u/ 132 is to be used to\nassess a person who is not searched, the AO would have to necessarily\ninitiate proceedings under section 153C of the Act, in order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

35 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nthe statute since the very inception of that section & thus, if any\nmaterial which is seized in a search conducted u/ 132 is to be used to\nassess a person who is not searched, the AO would have to necessarily\ninitiate proceedings under section 153C of the Act, in order

HEWLETT PAKCARD INDIA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

ia) of the Act in AY 2009-10 for non-deduction of taxes. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the disallowance in respect of reversal of expenses. 5. Miscellaneous expenses 5.1 The CIT(A), having accepted Appellant's explanation on claim of deduction of miscellaneous expenses, has erred

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES P. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the ld AO is dismissed and Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2010-11

ia) of the Act in AY 2009-10 for non-deduction of taxes. 4.4 Without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts, in upholding the disallowance in respect of reversal of expenses. 5. Miscellaneous expenses 5.1 The CIT(A), having accepted Appellant's explanation on claim of deduction of miscellaneous expenses, has erred

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The Court found that material on the record before the Court showed that in the statement of total income the assessee had disclosed an interest income of Rs.50.14 lacs as income from other sources. In the note appended to the statement of computation, under the heading 'interest income' the assessee stated that this represented

EXPAT ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The 9 ITA No.1139/Bang/2022. M/s.Expat Engineering India Limited. Court found that material on the record before the Court showed that in the statement of total income the assessee had disclosed an interest income of Rs.50.14 lacs as income from other sources. In the note appended to the statement of computation, under the heading 'interest

DAVANAM JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

ia) of the Act for alleged non-deduction of tax at source, without appreciating the facts and law. Page 4 of 10 9. The initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act is bad in law and unsustainable. 11. The Ld. Authorized Representative Smt. Pooja Maru and Shri N. Balusamy, Joint Commissioner of Income

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

reassess in the light of the provision of the section 153C of the Act. 7.3.4 During the course of hearing the Learned AR has relied on the Judgement of the Division Bench of The Jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No. 830 to 834 of 2022 , order dated 22/01/2014, which we have dealt with in detail in the later

EMKAY HINDUSTAN INFRASTRUCTURE,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

ia) is applicable on these payments. 2.9 Finally, the AO brought to tax the entire amount of cash receipts and 8% of the unaccounted contract receipts as income of the assessee as below: ITA Nos.979 to 983/Bang/2022 Emkay Hindustan Infrastructure, Mangaluru Page 8 of 36 2.10 Against this assessee is in appeal before us by way of following grounds common