HARIS KALANDAN MOHAMMED,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

u/s. 263 of the Act more so, when the AO had considered the details and the explanation offered by the assessee. Change of opinion by reappraising the evidence is not within the parameters of revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Further to attract the provisions of section 68 as alleged in the notice

M/S. KARTHIK ESTATE,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

u/s. 263 of Act, as the error envisaged by Section 263 of the Act is not one that depends on possibility as a guess work, but it should be actually an error either of fact or of law. 12. With regard to the argument that the assessee’s case requires to be considered in the light of the explanation

BASHIR AHMED ABDURRAHMAN MATTE,BELAGAVI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

68,608. Subsequently, the revision proceedings were initiated under section 263 by the Pr.CIT, Belagavi in regard to cost of construction and examination of capital introduction. Consequent to directions of the Pr.CIT in his order under section 263 setting aside the above issues, the AO made reference to the Valuation Officer on 04.05.2017. Since no report estimating cost of construction

HARIYAPPA KOTIAN,UDUPI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s. 263 of Act, as the error envisaged by Section 263 of the Act is not one that depends on possibility as a guess work, but it should be actually an error either of fact or of law. 12. With regard to the argument that the assessee’s case requires to be considered in the light of the explanation

SHRI. K. MUNIRAJU,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed by assessee for asst

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

68 was agated, the Pune ITAT in view of the Bombay High Court judgment set aside the order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Delhi Tribunal in case of Lord Krishna Dwellers (P) Ltd. Vs DCITITA No. 5294/DEL/2013 and 2403/DEL/2014 stated that "the transactions found in the sale deeds are duly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

revised, therefore, the same cannot be considered as fabricated or manipulated transactions. The appellant maintained the proper books of account in regular course of business which was duly audited by the independent Chartered Accountant under section 44AB of the Act. All the sales, purchases and stocks were recorded in the books of account which had not been doubted

INGERSOLL RAND (INDIA) LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

revision order passed under Section 263 in para 2 as under : “2. As the Assessing Officer while working out the qualifying business profits for arriving at the deduction u/s 80HHC had wrongly deducted Rs. 11,49,213/- being the deduction allowed u/s. 80HHE instead of the profits of Rs.38,30,713/- in respect of which deduction u/s 8OHHE is allowable

M/S. SAMPRASIDDHI INFRATECH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

68,920 The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 16.8.2018 was issued. During the course of assessment proceedings, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 12.11.2019 was issued seeking explanation as to why provision of expenses of Rs. 92,35,970 should not be disallowed. The relevant portion

RAMANAMURTHY MATHOD SRINIVASMURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

revision order passed by the.CIT (IT) is bad in law and liable to be deleted. Ground relating to treating long term capital asset as short 3. term capital asset: 3.1. The learned CIT (IT) has erred in treating the long term capital asset as short term capital assets in nature. 3.2. The learned CIT (IT) has. erred in not appreciating

M/S. EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BANGALORE

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

263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open. In Gabriel India Ltd.'s case (supra), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner : ". . . From a reading of sub-section (1) of section, it is clear

OM SAI CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT,GADAG vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

263 of the Act seeking to revise the assessment order on the premise that the cash deposited by the assessee was not verified properly and thus the order passed u/s. 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The assessee submitted before the PCIT that the AO has conducted enquiries pertaining to the cash deposits

TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY LTD ,SIRSI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

section 68 in case of receipts from debtors through deposits made by them directly in the bank as per RBI and GOI guidelines cannot be said to be unexplained cash credit. Reliance was placed on the following decisions of Bangalore Tribunal wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal has quashed the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on the addition u/s 68

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

u/s 156 of the Act resulting in demand of Rs 93,68,840 dated 23 March, 2024.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at\nany time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. Each of the above objections is\nindependent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred

ARJUN M RANGA,MYSURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

68,80,654/-. In respect of the said transfer of equity shares, he computed long term capital gains of Rs. 51,52,06,362/- in respect of which, exemption u/s. 54F of the Act, of Rs. 10,27,53,118/- was claimed. 5. It is submitted that the net sale consideration of Rs. 51,87,63,126/- received

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

263 ITR 101 (Ker) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. S. Khader Khan Son reported in (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Supreme Court), in which, it was highlighted that the statement under section 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value for the reason that the authorities are not empowered

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

263 ITR 101 (Ker) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. S. Khader Khan Son reported in (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Supreme Court), in which, it was highlighted that the statement under section 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value for the reason that the authorities are not empowered

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

263 ITR 101 (Ker) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. S. Khader Khan Son reported in (2013) 352 ITR 480 (Supreme Court), in which, it was highlighted that the statement under section 133A of the Act has no evidentiary value for the reason that the authorities are not empowered

M/S. SHIVA FERRIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the same has not been considered at the time of assessment, the assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as per Explanation 2 to Section 263 of IT Act. 6. The assessee submitted that Recourse to the provisions of section 263 of the Act cannot be taken