MAKINO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ACIT,

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings were completed exparte under Section 144 rws 147 of the Act vide order dt.29.12.2009, wherein the loss under normal provisions was computed at Rs.34,65,112. The ‘book profits’ under Section 115JB of the Act was determined at Rs.1,66,60,438 as under :- Profits before tax as per P&L Account : Rs.2

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S MAKINO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings were completed exparte under Section 144 rws 147 of the Act vide order dt.29.12.2009, wherein the loss under normal provisions was computed at Rs.34,65,112. The ‘book profits’ under Section 115JB of the Act was determined at Rs.1,66,60,438 as under :- Profits before tax as per P&L Account : Rs.2

HYAGREEVA HOTELS & RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD) CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedr Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Hyagreeva Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit (Osd), No.10/6, Lavelle Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 001. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaach 7551 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Akshita, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ramanathan, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024

set-off of losses amounting to Rs.22,43,078/- carried forward from the Assessment Year 2010-11, thereby further enhancing the income assessed during the reassessment

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S NOUS INFO SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaramani.T.A No.63/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -5(1)(1), Bengaluru .. Appellant V. M/S. Nous Info Systems P. Ltd, No.1, 1St Main, 1St Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru 560 004 .. Respondent Pan : Aaacn4584B Assessee By : Shri. Ujwal Tiwari, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Vijaykumar N, Addl. Cit Heard On : 14.09.2016 Pronounced On : 11 .11.2016 O R D E R Per S. Jayaraman:

reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer ('AO') made, inter alia, the following adjustments: • Deduction under section 10A at Rs.3,590,789/- has been considered based on original return of income, instead of the claim made at Rs.3,993,274/- as per revised return of income. • Carry forward of business losses at Rs.12,378,310/- has not been considered. 2.3. Aggrieved

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

set off brought forward business loss of Rs. 15,27,74,965/-. The same may be given to the assessee. On the issue of approval u/s 153D the assessee relies on the submissions given supra for AY 2005-06. The grounds on interest u/s 234A/B/C are consequential in nature.” 27.2 Department’s Submissions. (ITA No.1113/Bang/2015 A.Y. 2011- 12) “ CASH PAYMENTS

M/S. KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(5) PRESENTLY CIRCLE 4(1)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

set off of losses. The said issue of computation of deduction under section 80IA of the I.T.Act was never a subject matter of dispute in the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the 8 M/s.Karnataka Power Corporation Limited. I.T.Act, further appeal to ITAT or even in the consequential order passed by the A.O. to give effect to the order

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

set off against long term capital gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

set off against long term capital gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

set off against long term capital gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

set off against long term capital gains arising on sale of shares of M/ s. BPL Communication Pvt. Ltd owned by the assessee. This incorrect, bogus and manufactured capital losses cannot be allowed as a deduction and needs to be disallowed. On account of this, the entire short term capital losses claimed of Rs. 117,76,40,000/ - needs

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S APOTEX PHARMACHEM INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

losses shall be given to the assessee only after reassessing the incomes of the earlier years. It is also observed that the assessee has claimed the deduction before setting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, BANGALORE vs. M/S INDO AMERICAN HYBRID SEEDS INDIA P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan

Losses and after such set off is same as was determined as per the original assessment order u/s 143 (3) 1338 to1340(B)2014 dated 30.11.2010, it comes out that whatever be the result of assessee’s appeal in those proceedings u/s 143 (3), one thing is certain that there was no escapement of income because the A.O. has already

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11)No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12)The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings are not for the benefit of the assessee. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision supra, the AO rejected the assessee's claim of business loss of Rs.1,03,41,582/-, short term capital loss of Rs.18,15,348/- and speculation business loss of Rs.41,061/- in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act to be set

SRI BANKAPUR CHANNABASAPPA UMAPATHI ,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

reassessment proceedings are not for the benefit of the assessee. Relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision supra, the AO rejected the assessee's claim of business loss of Rs.1,03,41,582/-, short term capital loss of Rs.18,15,348/- and speculation business loss of Rs.41,061/- in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act to be set

DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)91), BENGALURU vs. G CORP PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result is filed by the learned assessing officer is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2014-15

reassessment proceedings where the whole return of income is available before the assessing officer to be tinkered with. same is not the case with respect to the assessment order passed in pursuance of order under section 263 of the learned PCIT. He therefore submitted that there is neither a statutory provision which requires the AO to issue such notice neither

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, BANGALORE

In the result, while appeal by the revenue and the CO by the Assessee is dismissed, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2007-08

loss set off in the return of income was disallowed and total income was quantified at Rs.18,00,36,023/-. 3. Subsequently the Assessment for AY 2007-08 was reopened by issue of a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 26.8.2009 and the reasons for initiating reassessment

CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, while appeal by the revenue and the CO by the Assessee is dismissed, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2007-08

loss set off in the return of income was disallowed and total income was quantified at Rs.18,00,36,023/-. 3. Subsequently the Assessment for AY 2007-08 was reopened by issue of a notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 26.8.2009 and the reasons for initiating reassessment

M/S TATA SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Ms. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Tata Power Solar Systems The Deputy Limited, Commissioner Of Unit 1, 78 Electronic City, Phase Vs. Income Tax, 1, Hosur Road, Circle – 7 (1) (1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent

loss was set off against the long term capital gains as per the provisions contained in section 71(2) and it was pointed out that while framing the original assessment, the AO himself treated the interest income as well as the dividend income as business income, and therefore, there was a consistent view for those two income for the year