M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of income filed with the return. The AO observed that as per section 36(1)(viia), assessee is eligible to get deduction to the extent of 7.5% of total income before

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs.936,90,65,332 as deduction u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act in the computation of income filed with the return. The AO observed that as per section 36(1)(viia), assessee is eligible to get deduction to the extent of 7.5% of total income before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

reassessment is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Monarch Educational Society V. ITO (Exemption) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 141 (Delhi) wherein it is held that, simply reproducing details received from Director of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

reassessment is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Monarch Educational Society V. ITO (Exemption) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 141 (Delhi) wherein it is held that, simply reproducing details received from Director of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

reassessment is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 15. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Monarch Educational Society V. ITO (Exemption) (2015) 57 Taxmann.com 141 (Delhi) wherein it is held that, simply reproducing details received from Director of Income

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

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

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

5) r.w.s. 127 of the Act. In our opinion, once an order under u/s. 127 is passed on 15.11.2014 by CIT-4, Bangalore, the jurisdiction of the assessee was with DCIT, Circle (2)(1), Bangalore or ACIT, Circle 4(2)(1) ceased to have jurisdiction over the assessee. The jurisdiction enjoyed by Circle 2(1) in terms of section

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2010-11

5 of 19 IT(TP)A Nos.405 & 474/Bang/2015 u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act has to be deleted. We direct accordingly. Ground No.14 by the assessee is accordingly allowed.” 7. The instant case relates to the financial year 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 and the payments have been made for purchase of software prior

M/S VOLVO INDIA PVT. LTD. vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

reassessment order passed by the Assessing IT(TP)A No.1537/Bang/2012 Page 8 of 58 Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub- section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board 5 for this purpose; (b) "eligible

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax Act) and the completion of any action, as referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to passing of any order—\n(α)........\n(b) for assessment or reassessment under the Income-tax Act, and the time limit for completion

ING VYSYA BANK LTD. vs. ACIT,

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boaz

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 submissions of the learned counsel

M/S. SRINIVAS INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH CENTRE,MANGALROE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

5) TMI 1354 held that: It is clear that the presumption of facts u/s 292C of the Act is not a mandatory or compulsory presumption but a discretionary presumption. Since, the word used in the said Section is may be" and not "shall". Secondly, such a presumption is rebuttable presumption and not a conclusive presumption because it is a presumption

M/S. ACER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

reassessment order passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the Commissioner under sub- section (12) of section 144BA. (15) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "Dispute Resolution Panel" means a collegium comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax constituted by the Board 5 for this purpose; (b) "eligible assessee" means,— (i) any person in whose case

IIFL SAMASTA FINANCE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

43) is subject to unless the context otherwise requires, in that view of the mater, the words any tax in section 40(a) (ii) includes Cess. Thus it is a settled position that Cess being in tax, is not an allowable deduction u/s. 40(a)(ii) of the I.T. Act. This amendment to the section has been made only after

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5, 7 and 8.” We submit that, the facts of the appellant are similar to the facts narrated above in as much as the appellant had filed return of income for the A.y.2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.89,39,000/-. There was no action on the return. The time limit for issue of notice U/s.143

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5, 7 and 8.” We submit that, the facts of the appellant are similar to the facts narrated above in as much as the appellant had filed return of income for the A.y.2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.89,39,000/-. There was no action on the return. The time limit for issue of notice U/s.143

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5, 7 and 8.” We submit that, the facts of the appellant are similar to the facts narrated above in as much as the appellant had filed return of income for the A.y.2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.89,39,000/-. There was no action on the return. The time limit for issue of notice U/s.143

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5, 7 and 8.” We submit that, the facts of the appellant are similar to the facts narrated above in as much as the appellant had filed return of income for the A.y.2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.89,39,000/-. There was no action on the return. The time limit for issue of notice U/s.143