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

reassessment proceedings, the\nassessee had submitted photographs showing that the\nproject was still under construction, which substantiates\nthat the transaction was not complete. Therefore, we hold\nthat the addition of Rs.1,71,13,333/- made by the Ld. AO\nand sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is unsustainable. The same\nis directed to be deleted.\n(iii) Sunil Kumar

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

56,02,560 - 23,01,09,276 1,41,85,547 24,42,94,823 2017-18 20,40,17,960 - 22,48,58,255 2,06,38,910 31,36,48,443 2018-19 43,78,88,596 - - 79,79,183 44,58,67,779 4. After centralization of the case, notice under section 153A

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

X out of which Rs. 53.47 cr. was found to be ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 6 of 46 prudentially written off. The majority of bad debts written off related to urban debts mounting to Rs. 218.09 Crores and the rural debts written off was only Rs. 0.77 Crores which has been separately reduced from the claim of provision

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

X out of which Rs. 53.47 cr. was found to be ITA Nos.1107/Bang/2019 & 161/PAN/2019 Page 6 of 46 prudentially written off. The majority of bad debts written off related to urban debts mounting to Rs. 218.09 Crores and the rural debts written off was only Rs. 0.77 Crores which has been separately reduced from the claim of provision

MANIPAL HOSPITALS PVT. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS COLUMBIA ASIA HOSPITALS PVT. LTD),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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.] 73 [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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.] 73 [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

MANIPAL GLOBAL EDUCATION SERVICES PVT LTD., ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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.] 73 [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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.] 73 [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

MANIPAL EDUCATION AND MEDICAL GROUP INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

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.] 73 [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. AO erred in levying penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before

MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

x. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. AO erred in levying penalty under sections 271(1)(c) of the Act. xi. The Assessee have right reserve to Amend modify delete and make any additional grounds of appeal. 2.3 During the appellate proceedings the assessee raised additional grounds of appeal before

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

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

In the result, we allow appeal filed by the assessee

56,81,20,46,19,\n63which were purchased by the assessee after making the sale\nagreements in the F.Y-2006-07.\n4.4 The chart at above page No.13 to 16 under the column “Sale\nPrice\" indicates the \"Purchase Value\" of the shops and also\ndescribes the premium paid in respect of shop numbers 46, 19,\n63.In the chart at page No.15 \"Sale

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

x). Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs ACIT [2019] 106 taxmann.\nCom 137 (Gujarat) The learned Standing Council for the Revenue\nsubmitted that in this case the Gujarat High Court held that the\namendment to section 153C of the Act, carried out w.e.f. 01.06.2015,\n\nPage 27 of 77\nwas prospective in nature & the same cannot be applied to searches\nconducted

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

x). Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs ACIT [2019] 106 taxmann.\nCom 137 (Gujarat) The learned Standing Council for the Revenue\nsubmitted that in this case the Gujarat High Court held that the\namendment to section 153C of the Act, carried out w.e.f. 01.06.2015,\n\nPage 27 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nwas prospective in nature

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

x). Anil Kumar Gopikishan Agrawal vs ACIT [2019] 106 taxmann.\nCom 137 (Gujarat) The learned Standing Council for the Revenue\nsubmitted that in this case the Gujarat High Court held that the\namendment to section 153C of the Act, carried out w.e.f. 01.06.2015,\n\nPage 27 of 77\nITA Nos.45, 46, 47, 48/Bang/2020\nITA No.205/Bang/2022\nwas prospective in nature